Have You Ever Read Ephesians?

Romans 6:14 - "For sin will not lord it over you, for you are not under the law but under grace." Prior to verse 14 "the law" is not specifically mentioned until we back up to chapter 5 verse 20, as we work our way backwards - "And the law entered in alongside that the offense might abound; ..." What "law" that "entered in" that the offense might abound, logically is the "law" Paul continues to speak of in chapter 6. Don't you think so?Backing up further in chapter 5 Paul says "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law." (Rom. 5:13). Why is it not logical to understand that Paul is speaking of the Law of Moses ? This law of Moses which came in at the time of the Exodus long after the beginning of man's creation on earth. "For until the law ..." indicates to me some lapse of time PRIOR to the law being officially ordained. And "the law entered" must be speaking of its official ordination.Now we do not hear about "the law" again specifically until Romans 6:14 - "For sin will not lord it over you, for you are not under THE LAW but under grace." (6:14 my emphasis) What other law do you think Paul is speaking of then ?When you get to chapter 7 now, you do definitely have LAW mentioned as relating to probably FOUR different matters. But in chapter 6 I think Paul is definitely continuing his talk about grace and the law of Moses which entered at Mt. Sinai.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This is correct that the law of sin is distinct from the law of Moses. But you should not use that as a rational to obfuscate the fact that Romans 6:14 is speaking of the law which entered in at Mt. Sinai which is the law of Moses.I think you are kind of tossing a lot of dust into the air to cloud issues. You speak of authentic and questionable letters. For the most part I think you are just clouding matters up.Drawing to the Christian's attention that "law" has a number of nuanced conotations in chapter 7 is OK. But this should not be, I think, a rational to obscure its usage in Romans 6:14 - "For sin will not lord it over you, for you are not under the law but under grace." (Rom. 6:14) In chapters 7 and 8 - the law of my mind, the law of sin which is in my members, the law of sin and death, the law of the Spirit of life, the law which is good and spiritual and holy - are all nuanced usages of law. I agree. But Romans 6:14 refers to the law he discussed in Romans 5 which entered with Moses at Mt. Sinai.

quote:

---

His use of the word law isn't cut and dried.

---

In chapter 7 and 8 law has some different meanings. Many of us can see that.Now leaping from that to insisting Romans 6:14 is on something beside the law of Moses, I think is a mistake.

quote:

---

Even though righteousness isn't gain through obedience to the Mosaic Law, it doesn't negate it either and as I stated at the beginning, Gentiles were not subject to the Mosaic Laws.

---

The Judiazers WANTED to bring the Christians who came from a Gentile backround UNDER the law of Moses.Paul admits latter in an epistle that all in Asia turned away from him. "This you know, that all who are in Asia turned away from me, of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes." (1 Timothy 1:15) This could indicate that those teams of preachers working to undermind and tear down Paul's enfluence did eventually achieve some substantial success. They may have gotten congregations to turn away from Paul's presentation of the Gospel in favor of some more legalistic enfluence of a Law of Moses keeping Christianity.I hear you arguing that the Gentiles were not under that Law of Moses anyway. However, I think your analysis will not stand up to careful scrutiny.The Gospel came out of the Jews' community, so to speak. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. So many Jews upon seeing non-Jews turn to their Messiah sought to bring them also under the Law of Moses.If I had been a Jew in those days, without revelation from God I probably would have done the same thing. Paul had revelation from God. And Peter also was told by God to not consider the Gentiles as unclean animals. They too should be saved by grace through faith. With as much inventiveness I could make a case that the poster Purpledawn today is probably not the same person Purpledawn who wrote something say two years ago on another discussion.My, my, just look at the differences. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Purpledawn is correct that "law" is not so cut and dry in its usage especially in Romans 7 and 8. I fully agree that we have to be careful how "law" is being used.The same might be said for "died" or "death." Careful consideration to context has to be observed.But the issue at hand is whether or not Romans 6:14 about the believers in Rome no longer being under law is about something beside the law which came through Moses. Romans 5:13 - "For until the law sin was in the world ..." I think he means that sin was in the world even before the giving of the law of Moses at the time of the Exodus. Of course sin was in the world. God judged the world of Noah because of the sin that was in the world. Romans 5:20 - "And the law entered in alongside that the offense might abound ..." There is a principle of rebellion in man's being. If you tell him not to do something, it seems that something evil spontaneously rises up to transgress on some general principle.I once met a man who said "I just cannot stand for people to tell me what I can and cannot do!"This is something like the sin in man's fallen flesh. If he hears "Thou Shalt NOT ..." something in us rises up and declares "Oh YEA ? You are going to tell ME not to do this or that. On general principle I will do it anyway." "And the law [ie. of Moses] entered in alongside that the offense might abound ..." The sin was there already. The entering in of the law caused the sin to ABOUND. Anybody out there raise kids ?Look, the law was like the drink a cancer patient drinks. This special drink causes the X-Ray machine to better highlight where the disease of cancer is ravaging the insides. The law of Moses caused the sin to rise up as a personified evil thing and abound in man.The law God gave to Moses was good. But it exposed the sin nature, made it abound, and caused sin to become exceedingly sinful - " ... Did that which is good become death to me? Absolutely not! But sin [did], that it might be shown to be sin by working out death in me through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful." (7:13) To make matters a little more intricate Paul speaks of - a law of his mind which agrees with the law of God.To make matters a little more complex Paul speaks of a law in his fallen members of his body working against his own will and his better law in his mind which agrees with the law of God.That is three laws already in chapter 7.Then there is "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" as the strongest law of all. That is the law of the life of Christ. Every life has its law. And Christ Jesus has in His life a law which can get into man as Christ gets into man. It is powerful. It is more powerful that the law of sin and death.That is a whole discussion which continues on until the new heaven and new earth and probably beyond. We could say a lot about that.Right now I want to suggest that the law of Romans 6:14 is simply that law which entered in to make sin abound more and to expose the sin in man's fallen flesh.The Christians whether from the Gentiles or the Jews, are not under the law. They are under grace. The are placed in Christ as a living dynamic spiritual realm - an available Person. That is an unusual resurrected and approachable Person that they can be incorporated with, blend with, merge with, interweave with, mingle with and live through.Not only are they justified by what Christ has done on His cross. They are practically justified before man by living in this realm. Christ is seen manifested from within them as they learn to walk step by step in union with this indwelling Lord and Savior. "For sin will not lord it over you, for you are not under the law but under grace." We could be reminded of John's word - "For the law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17) The law of Moses was given.
Grace and reality CAME.
When Jesus came - grace and reality came.The Christians in Rome are no longer under the law of Moses (as Jews) and are not to be brought under the law of Moses by the Judaizers. They are in the realm of the Lord Jesus who is the coming to them of grace and reality. The living Jesus is the sphere within which they live and must remain to live.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I would like to think, that by now perhaps you might expect that I know that some translations would leave out the "the" in Romans 6:14.But if you don't that is ok. But I have been aware that not all English translations supply the "the" there. Thankyou for bringing this to the forefront.The version which I usually quote, the Recovery Version even changed in its second revision. The first edition had this - "For sin shall not lord it over you, for you are not under law but under grace." The more recent revision had the "the" - "For sin will not lord it over you, for you are not under the law but under grace." The habit of the RcV is to put supplied words in italics. Since in the second addition the word "the" is not in italics I am not sure which is more proper "under law" or "under the law"I do not fluently read and write NT Greek.I want to look into the passage further as it is expounded by a few expositors that I trust. You have succeeded in making me some more curious and cautious.I could be wrong. If I get convinced that I am wrong you'll receive an apology and a retraction. If not, you'll just get my honest opinion as to how I think Romans 6:14 should be understood.Latter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Welcome to the discussion. Let me digest your contribution here for awhile.

And the reason for your disagreement is chiefly that the audience is of Gentiles who have turned to Christ ?Is that the main reason you don't think the Mosiac law is indicated there, because Gentiles were not required to keep the law of Moses ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Is the absence of the word the in some English renderings the strongest reason you think Rom. 6:14 does not refer to the law of Moses ?Ie. " for you are not under law ..." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Young's Literal Translation:

quote:

---

12 for as many as without law did sin, without law also shall perish, and as many as did sin in law, through law shall be judged,

​

13 for not the hearers of the law [are] righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be declared righteous: --

---

Verse 12 speaks of law without "the" twice.
Verse 13 begins with "for" which indicates that he is further discussing matters in verse 12.Verse 13 uses "the law" ... "hearers of the law" ... "doers of the law".If "law" without "the" is mentioned it can include "the law" of Moses. But it could mean something wider in scope.Gentiles under the Law of Hammurabi and Jews under the Law of Moses, could in Paul's concept both be "under law." It is diffucult to take YLT from Romans 2 through Romans 8 and insist that the translator's omission definite article (which some other reputable translations might supply) has to mean Paul was excluding the law of Moses.I may have been too hard on purpledawn for wanting to point the YLT rendering out. I'm sorry.I intend to take my time to carefully study YLT in Romans. As it stand right now I understand Romans 6:14 to say thus -

1.) If you are a Christian from a Jewish backround - you are no longer under law but under grace. You may make that "the law" of Moses, but under grace. I think it must be permissible a rendering. But I am not a Greek translator.

​

2.) If you are a Christian from a Gentile backround who was perhaps under the Law of Hammurabi or some other law, you under no longer under law but under grace.

​

3.) If you are a Christian from whatever backround, you are not under even a self made law, you are under grace. The exhortation is to believers in Jesus Christ.
The phrase "you are not under [the] law but under grace" is not some general teaching to the world regardless of where they stand with Christ.That the Christian is not under [the] law but under grace is the reason sin cannot lord it over them. The reason sin cannot lord it over the Christian is because he is not under [the] law, or under law of Moses but under grace.Of course all of the benefits of the new covenant are appropriated by the exercise of faith. It is normal that the Christian exercising his faith in God's word, would not be able to be lorded over by sin BECAUSE he is not ignorant and exercises faith towards the fact that he is no longer under law but under grace.The Christian being under grace gives him the position to reject sin.Sin no longer has any right to make claims upon the believer in Christ. But standing with faith in grace the Christian has the right to reject sin and its power.I think this explanation is faithful to the attitude that the apostle Paul displays in Romans 6. Paul would not have his audience of believers be "ignorant". " Or are you ignorant that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death ? We have been buried therefore with Him through baptism into His death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we might walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:1-4)With Paul it is FIRSTLY a matter of SEEING.
You have to SEE the divine facts.
You have to not be ignorant of the divine truths.
You have to see the revelation so that you would not be ignorant.Another time Paul insists that the Christians would not be ignorant is in Second Corinthians when he insists that they KNOW that Jesus Christ is living in them - "Test yourselves whether you are in the faith' prove yourselves. Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved? (2 Cor. 13:5,6) Paul is saying "Christian, you have to SEE the facts. You have to not be ignorant. Jesus Christ is in you. If Jesus Christ is not in you then you are disapproved concerning the Christian faith."The New Testament blessings are all secured by faith.Back to Romans 6:14. By rejecting sin and taking sides with the resurrected Christ, the believers in Jesus present themselves and their members as slaves to righteousness. Or "weapons of righteousness" (verse 13, RcV).Verse 13 [The Recovery Version] - "Neither present your members as weapons of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as alive from the dead, and your members as weapons of righteousness to God.

​

For sin will not lord it over you, for you are not under the law but under grace. The YLT omits "the" before law. Even if we adopt the rendering "you are not under law but under grace" (which I would not object to), I don't think any case can be made that it EXCLUDES the law of Moses. It simply may be understood to include more.The footnote of the Recovery Version on Romans 6:14 says the law there is the law of Moses.

quote:

---

"This does not make us lawless, as some were during the time of the church's degradation (Jude 4). The law referred to in this verse is the law given by Moses, which has been replaced by the inward laws in the new covenant (Heb. 10:16) . Just as chs. 5 and 6 explain that we are now under grace, ch. 7 and 8 explain how it can be that we are not under law."

---

Purpledawn seems to insist that the YLT indicates that Romans 6:14, by omitting the article"the" cannot be refering to the law of Moses.I think at best it could just wider in scope than only the law of Moses.If I say that "law" there refers to a Gentile code such as, ie. the Code of Hammurabi, it is diffucult to think of 6:14 as a continuation of discussion of "law" in YLT even WITHOUT the article "the" in the last two passages before 6:14 refering to law. That would be Romans 5:20,13.YLT - "13 for till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law; 20 And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound, How can I have the insistence that the Law of Moses is not infered just because of the missing "the" ?

quote:

---

Missing "the" in the YLT - 13 For not through law [is] the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, of his being heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith;

---

How can I insist that the law given on Mt. Sinai is not refered to here ?

quote:

---

YLT - 14 for if they who are of law [are] heirs, the faith hath been made void, and the promise hath been made useless;

​

15 for the law doth work wrath; for where law is not, neither [is] transgression.

---

How can "the law" of Moses in verse 15 not be at least included in "of law" in vers 14 ? Can a strict dichotomy be made so that law in verse 14 excludes the law of Moses but "the law" in verse 15 means nothing else but the law of Moses ?The law with and without the article seem interchangeable in verse 15 in the YLT.

quote:

---

15 for the law doth work wrath; for where law is not, neither [is] transgression.

---

It is impossible, I think, to insist that "law" after the semicolon excludes the law of Moses before the semicolon.In the same way I have not the confidence to EXCLUDE the law of Moses in YLT Romans 6:14 -

quote:

---

14 for sin over you shall not have lordship, for ye are not under law, but under grace.

---

If I understand PD rightly, I think PD is saying that the absence of the definite article "the" in the YLT rendering of Romans 6:14 makes a clear cut dichotomy kick in. The law of Moses CANNOT be what is refered to.That Paul used LAW to refer to something wider in scope than just the law of Moses, is quite possible. I think purpledawn is probably correct to point out sometimes something more general was in Paul's mind.The problem I see is the dichotomy of assuming the law of Moses is for this reason excluded from that generality. And if I understand PD, PD is saying that the generality of the YLT rendering of Romans 6:14 make it impossible that Paul is telling the audience that they are not under the law of Moses.

quote:

---

15 What then? shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? let it not be!

---

I think that this was the criticism leveled at the Apostle Paul. That is that because men were not justified by the keeping of the law of Moses some feared this was to give free license to commits sins.They did not realize that in place of Moses's law keeping there was the writing of the living laws of Christ's Person into their inward parts. This was the indwelling grace. This was the indwelling Christ. This was the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. And this was the imparting of God's laws into their mind and on thier hearts.See Hebrews 10:16. The writer is quoting Jeremiah 31:33. The writer is saying that the new covenant of writing of God's law in the inward parts is in contrast to the covenant given at Mt. Sinai at the time of the Exodus - " a new covenant ... not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt ..." (See Jer. 31:33) Paul may very well have had a wider scope general usage of the word law. But when he tells the Romans that they are not under law but under grace, he has to be refering to, or at least including ALSO the Mosiac law covenant which the grace of the new covenant replaces.I could have written something mistaken in this post. James says all the teachers make mistakes. I am opened to see what someone considers an error in this post.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Following verse 14 Paul laborates on the sins he is speaking of. They are the trangressions caused by the members of the body.Verse 19 - "For just as you presented your members as slaves to uncleaness and lawlessness unto lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness unto sanctification." Mouth, ears, tongue, hands, feet, eyes, etc. these and more are all "members". " ... you presented your members as slaves to uncleaness ..." The members of the body of were the slaves of sin. The scope of things done wrong by the members of the body is quite large. They may include religious faults as well as non-religious faults.To me, "the spirits of men" is a rather positive phrase you are using. It is not "the souls of men". But I undersand the phrase, whether or not you used is this way, to refer to the spiritual component of men which enables them to know God.Without a human spirit I don't think we could touch God within.
You would have to explain more about your usage of "the spirits of men" there.Paul served God in his human spirit - "For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of His Son ..." (Rom. 1:9) The service in the regenerated human spirit is something the church should want more of and not less. Serving in the spirit which, in the Christian, is mingled with the Lord Spirit, is quite a positive matter. "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17) The negative element comes in when Paul elaborates on the soulish man verses the spiritual man. The human spirit should ascend above the human soul. And the human soul should reside beneath the enfluence of the human spirit joined to the Lord so as to be one united, one mingled spirit - "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Since in the Christian, she is joined one spirit with the Holy Spirit, Paul's last critical word in the New Testament was for Timothy to never forget that Jesus Christ the Lord was with his spirit. "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (2 Tim. 4:22) Your usage of the spirit of men seems a little negative above. You would have to explain a little more what you mean. I might agree somewhat but express it in different words.At any rate, the sins Paul is speaking of are so open ended that I don't think you can relagate them only to religious ones. The faults of the members of the fallen body are many.On the positive side, the apostle says now, that seeing our death with Christ and resurrection with Christ we should present our members as slaves of righteousness. Christ living within is that righteousness. And man in regeneration can live in union with this living Person.Christ can incorporate Himself into our personality and empower us through His indwelling grace. I may come back to this.

I hope you can tie your comments into a study of the book of Ephesians. But if not this little bit of grandstanding we can still examine. Really? Below you say that grace presents problems to election. If you believe then that election is a doctrine that has "absolute biblical origin" how did you determine that ?If you believe that election finds some reference in the ministry of Jesus, how did you determine that ?Then I can apply your methodology and see whether grace has "absolute biblical origin" and/or reference in the ministry of Jesus.So show us how you determined that election is a legitimate biblical doctrine with reference in the ministry of Jesus. I would like to know what you define here as "modern". Give us some rough dates as to what delineates your usage of "modern". In what century did this "modern understanding of "G"race originate ?Was the book of Romans written in your "modern" times?
Was the book of Galatians written in your "modern" times?
What about the book of Acts which says - "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we are saved in the same way also as they are." (Acts 15:11) Was Peter's word here part of your "modern" invention of the false doctrine of Grace ? Just because it presents some problems you have designated the concept as having no biblical origin ? Just because it presents some problems it has no reference in the ministry of Jesus ?I don't regard the introduction of some theological problems as reason to grandstand that a teaching has no origin in the Bible.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Good verses Eli. It was a pleasure looking them up.These I take to be passages that establish for you that election is:1.) A teaching with origin in the Bible (unlike grace) or ("G"race).2.) A teaching which finds reference in the ministry of Jesus (unlike grace) or ("G"race).

quote:

---

Matt 20:16

---

This is the concluding word of Jesus to the parable of the householder hiring workmen at different times of the day and rewarding them all equally at the end, irrespective of how long in hours they labored. (Matthew 20:1-16) While it is possible to see a teaching of election here it is also just as possible to see a teaching of grace. "Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is mine? Or is your eye evil because I am good?

​

Thus shall the last be first and the first last." Since the riches are the possession of the householder I could see in this parable a teaching of grace also. " ... to do what I wish with what is mine ...".Since the typical commercial attitude is offended that the Lord rewarded the short time workers the same as the long term workers, the grace of God definitely could be indicated here.I do not deny that election could be derived. I only point out that grace could be just as well derived.

quote:

---

Matt 24:24

---

"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders so as to lead astray, if possible the chosen [the elect]. While I agree that a teaching of election is clearly seen in this passage ... "the chosen [or the elect]" all things in the chapter considered it also could be an indication of a teaching of God's grace.This is concerning prophecy. This is concerning things not yet to have occured but will occur.A comparison is made between the believers of these last days with the patriarch Noah. "For just as the days of Noah were, so will the coming of the Son of Man be ... until the day in which Noah entered into the ark." (See Matt. 24:37,38) But Genesis tells us that Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah - "But Noah found favor [or grace] in the eyes of Jehovah." (Genesis 6:8) In comparing the elect to Noah who found grace in the eyes of God, a biblical teaching of grace can be derived from this passage just as much as a teaching of election from verse 24.

quote:

---

Luke 18:7

---

And will God not by all means carry out the avenging of His chosen ones, who cry to Him day and night, though He is long suffering over them?" Here God's "elect" certainly indicate the biblical origin of election. And a concept of election is referenced by Jesus.However I would point to the very next verse 8 - "I tell you that He will carry out their avenging quickly. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth? " .If election proves that there will be believers on the earth, then what need is there for Jesus to ask the question - " ... when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" The question to me means, will some people AVAIL themselves of the grace of God which is extended to them.Some receive grace. Some reject grace.Faith being on the earth in the last days depends on some receiving the offered grace of God.If men despise the favor of God offered to them in Christ and His salvation, faith will not be found on the earth.So while I agree that Luke 18:7 obviously reveals a teaching of election it also with verse 8 could paradoxically indicate a doctrine of grace as well.When the Son of Man comes will there be faith on the earth? Will there be those who reach out and accept offered salvation of God's favor.This relates to grace as a power over man.But I see also in Luke 18 grace as a power working IN man as well. For their persistant prayers are through the empowering of God.When the disciples could not watch and pray with Jesus for an hour He told them that the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak.Since the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak what the disciples needed was the empowering of grace to enable them to pray persistantly.I take the repetitive petition of the woman towards the judge to also indicate the weak saints being empowered to pray and pray to a point of arresting the attention of the judge. Sometimes our person is just not right though we ask God of things. He strengthens us to pray by His grace until we really have a change in our being. The prayer has changed the prayer. Before the prayer changed things outside of man, the persistent prayer by God's empowering changed things WITHIN man.Often times when our being more corresponds to Christ Himself the petition is granted.For the real answer to every request to God is that we be conformed to the image of Christ.So I see in the teaching also an biblical origin of God's grace as a favor over man as well as an empowering within man by God.Ie. "But by the grace of God I am what I am; and His grace unto me did not turn out to be in vain, but, on the contrary, I labored more abundantly than all of them [apostles], yet not I but the grace of God which is with me." (1 Cor. 15:10) Paul's faithful apostleship, extensive labors, persistent prayers, effective petitions, powerful intercessions were all by the grace of God that was with him. By God's grace he was what he was. He availed himself of that grace and it turned out very profitable. The great grace he received he did not receive in vain.The "widow" representing the disciples as the church, also persists in her petitions to God by the empowering of God's grace that is with them.

quote:

---

Mark 13:20

---

"And unless the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen [or elect], whom He chose, He shortened the days." I agree that this passages reveals a biblical origin for election also from the "red letter" sayings of Jesus.It is not too difficult to look in the same area and find indications of a doctrine of grace in the same chapter.Exhortations to WATCH, to be READY, to not be caught in a stupor or befuddled all indicate needing to depend upon God.As long as there are exhortations and warning to the audience, a strong indication of seeking grace from God is also evidenced.If election was so strong that it didn't matter whether one watched or not, then we might think no grace of God is needed. We would think that all things of the prophecy are simply so automatic all one has to do is just WAIT.But these kinds of exhortations about the end times usually are accompanyied with charges to watch and pray.For example - Luke 21:35,36 - "For it will come in upon all those dwelling on the face of the earth. But be watchful at every time, beseeching that you would prevail to escape all these things which are about to happen and stand before the Son of Man." The beseeching believers is requesting strength from God.The watching and beseeching believer is looking to God for empowering to endure, to stand firm and "prevail".It is not necessary the he be beseeching to be saved forever.He may be saved already forever yet he seeks empowerment to endure througth trial and tribulation.This strongly indicates a teaching of needed grace of God to endure, prevail, overcome.I submit that any doctrine of election is not so strong as to negate a teaching of grace of God.At least some of the elect are pressed to seek empowering from God to prevail.And the power to withstand and overcome is a matter of the grace of God.

quote:

---

A high number of Bible characters had great success and victory in life essentially because of God’s grace. If Noah (Gen.6:8), Moses (Exod.33:12), Esther (Esther 2:17), David (Acts 7:45-46), Paul (1 Cor. 15:10) and Jesus the Christ (Luke 2:40; John1:17), needed the grace of God to excel in whatever they did, you and I need much more grace.

---

Copied from Sermon Central - Empowered By Grace Sermon by Sesan Banjo, Luke 2:40-52 - SermonCentral.com

quote:

---

Jhn 15:16

---

"You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and I set you that you should go forth and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask to Father in My name, He may give you." This saying is concerning the teaching of the true vine and the believers as the abiding branches. "I am the vine; you are the branches. He who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5) While I can see election derived from this chapter I also can see the grace of Christ derived definitely as well. For we are exhorted to abide in Christ the true vine. "Abide in Me and I in you. As the the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine so neither can you unless you abide in Me." (v.4) The true vine is Christ. In Christ is the life supply and the riches of His life. We are exhorted to abide in Him so that being attached to Him His rich life can flow into us and accomplish all the things to God's glory which we cannot accomplish apart from Him. This is a matter of God's grace.Yes, we can see election for He chose the disciples and they did not choose Him. However they are exorted to ABIDE in Him. That is a choice.If they do not abide they cannot bear fruit. If they abide in Him they can bear fruit because His riches flow into them as branches.The dispensing of Christ's life and Christ's riches into the ones in union with Him is a matter of the grace of Christ in them. What they do not have in themselves they do have by abiding in Jesus Christ. This has to be a matter of God's grace, if you will, God's favor flowing into man through Christ.If you say that election is indicated in John 15 I would say that God's grace is just as much indicated in John 15. "By the grace of God I am what I am" could be applied here -IE. "By abiding in Christ, and by that alone, I am what I am." The problem is that I would not make the abuse of a teaching of election proof that election is not in the Bible.Nor would I say that an abuse of the notion of grace make grace not with biblical origin.Somewhat askew presentations of election do not cause me to announce that election has no reference in the ministry of Jesus.And inadaquate or unbalanced presentations of Grace do not prompt me to announce that it is the king of false teachings with no biblical origin and no reference in the ministry of Jesus.I would consider this a reactionary extreme.The passages you have submitted to prove the biblical origin of election could also help us to see the biblical origin of the grace of God.One other matter. I do not consider only the "red letters" as the ministry of Jesus.I would derive the earthly ministry of Jesus from the four gospels.I would derive the continuation of the ministry of Jesus as the heavenly ministry of Jesus as it was carried out by the faithful apostles.So I find "the ministry of Jesus" continued in the book of Acts and in the epistles.When the evangelist Luke tells us that the boy Jesus grew and the grace of God was upon Him, this establishes ground for grace being biblical. "And the little child grew and became strong, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him." (Luke 2:40) You did not really clarify what you mean between biblical "grace" and non-biblical "G"race. I take it to mean some kind of unbalanced teaching. Some people have refered to the prejorative phrase "Cheap Grace" to indicate not healthy teaching concerning grace.Some modern evangelical presentations of so called "Cheap Grace" are not good. But they do not cause me to say grace has no biblical origin and no reference in the ministry of Jesus. The word grace may not be explicitly used by Jesus. But the "red letter" method of quotation does not negate that the FACT of God's grace is seen in the ministry of Jesus and taught as well.For example, the two thieves beside Jesus - "And he [one thief] said to Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom. And He [Jesus] said to him, truly I say to you, Today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:42,43) The main point here is that one thief was saved by the grace of God. His faith in what Christ was was his only ground upon which He would be with Christ in Paradise and not in punishment of a lost unbeliever. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8) is Paul simply echoing the fact of a believer's salvation through His faith in Christ, and this saved by God's grace."Finally the last word of any book is often the crucial word. The final word is very important. And the whole divine revelation of the Bible closes with a passage about the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ - "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with all the saints. Amen" (Revelation 22:21) I think it is ludicrous to assume that Bible's final word is concerning a doctrine which has not biblical origin or reference in the ministry of the Son of God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Eli, I don't see my task to figure out what little axe to grind you have with mainstream Christianity.My only concern was to demonstrate that the same methods of uncovering a teaching of election with biblical origin could apply to discerning God's grace as having biblical origin also.I would like to come back to Ephesians which is the focus. If you have some particular beef about the teaching of grace that you need everyone to know about, just maybe you could show how "grace" in Ephesians can be contrasted with the perversions of grace you're so interested in.I count "grace" mainly to be God Himself in the Son to be enjoyed by man. It is a power of God over man and a moving of God within man as well.Maybe you and I could talk about grace and responsibility in Ephesians.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

"For He Himself is our peace, He who has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of partition, the enmity,

​

Abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances, that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace." (Eph. 2:14-15) While PD writes: I definitely feel that God Himself has spoken Ephesians 2:14-15 through the apostle Paul in the Holy Spirit. Old Testament Uniting - The hint that God would bring Jews and Gentiles together in one corporate entity is found in the Old Testament. Isaiah 19:25 - "In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the land, With which Jehovah of hosts will bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt My people and Assyria the work of My hands and Israel My inheritance." The only point here is that the OT shows God's desire to unite Gentile and Jews. In this three part collective Israel is said to be " the third party. "This prophecy must have sounded radical in Isaiah's day. And I am not saying that I know this to be a prediction concerning the NT church.But for God to bring a blessed unity like this together, enmity/rivaly caused by dividing ordinances would most likely have to be nullified in some way. Otherwise there could hardly be peace because of pointed cultural differences. Uniting in the Gospels - Did Jesus in His ministry indicate a desire to unite Jews and Gentiles in one body ? I would say we have indications of that. In John 10 where Jesus speaks of Himself as the Good Shepherd there is indications of His desire to unite all His sheep into one flock - "I am the good Shepherd, and I know My own, and My own know Me, Even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

​

And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one flock, one Shepherd." (John 10:14-16) The fold may be the Jewish believers. The "one flock" is probably the coming church, the one new man of Paul's revelation. Here the Jewish sheep and the "other sheep" are brought together by the Good Shepherd into "one flock".I am a believing Gentile. I am one of the "other sheep" of Jesus.So Paul invented nothing new. Neither did he work against the desire of God revealed both in the Old Testament and in the Gospel of John. Uniting After the Ascension of Jesus, the church - We see God's bringing together the Jews in the Gentiles into one church. At Pentecost the Jewish sheep began to come in. And in the house of Cornelius in Acts chapter 10.Peter recounts this event in the council in Acts 15 - "Therefore why are you now testing God by placing a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

​

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we are saved in the same way also as they are." (Acts 15:11,12) The "yoke" which the fathers of the Jews could not bear is the Law of Moses. The "yoke" that Peter says the apostles should not put on the Gentiles who become disciple of Jesus, is that same Law of Moses.Effectively then they must consider the Law of Moses as abolished as far as Justification unto salvation is concerned.This seemed good to the Holy Spirit as well as the elders and apostles in the council. The letter written to the Gentiles how came into the church read: "For it seemed GOOD TO THE HOLY SPIRIT and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things ..." (Acts 15:28 my emphasis) To be fair, I think we can see that it was really hard for them to completely abolish all ordinances. Nevertheless, this is their understandable human weakness. It was not easy to make the transition. And James never did fully make it. I believe Paul went much further.I expect that someone may try to suspicion readers against the writer of the book of Acts which was Luke. I suspect some may want you to discount Luke, the traveling companion with Paul, as being prejudiced to Pauline concepts. But the events of the council and the letter speak for themselves.The point of this post is that Paul in writing Ephesisans 2:14-15 was right in step with the move of God. That move was strongly hinted at in the Old Testament, spoken to by Christ in the Gospel of John, demonstrated by the Holy Spirit in Acts and adhered to with some difficulty by the elders and apostles in Jerusalem.That's good enough for this post. There is more to come.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I will not speak of the so-called "authentic letters of Paul."
I will speak of some higher critics "preferred letters of Paul."Now one of the "preferred letters" is Romans.
In Romans chapter 14 and 15 we can see that the ordinances may have been abolished but the saints had the freedom to practice some, as long as they received one another.I would request that you read Romans 14. Issues of diet are touching on Levitical ordinances. Paul did not FORBID eating according to these ordinances.What Paul did do is teach the believers to RECEIVE one another anyway merely because Christ had received each of them. He does not say "I forbid you to adhere to Jewish ordinances." His tone is more "You Christians must receive one another as brothers and not pass judgement upon each other based on ordinances."Again, I leave it to the reader to read the 14th chapter of this "preferred letter of Paul".I believe Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Ephesians 2:14-15 as well as the whole book of Ephesians.
However, by examining Romans I do not regard the abolishing of the laws in ordinances to be a PROHIBITION against some weaker believers to still practice some ordinances. "Now him who is weak in faith receive, [but] not for the purpose of passing judgments on his considerations.

​

One believes that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables." (Rom. 14:1,2) Paul does not forbid ordinances in eating. He did not say "Since the law in ordinances is abolished you are strictly forbidden to practice dietary ordinances."Abolishing the law in ordincances in commandments does not go this far. It does not make new law about not keeping laws. "Thou Shalt Not Eat According to Oral or Written Torah Ordinances."If Paul is the author of Hebrews I might not suggest the sacrifices were among these ordincances to be tolerated for the weaker believers. And the "prefered letter" of Galations is similar.
I don't think Paul said the weaker Christian brothers should go ahead and offer blood sacrifices.No. But in Romans he instructs the saints to be accomodating towards the weaker brothers and sisters who still like ordinances. He is treaching a genuinely liberal attitude of acceptance without judging.Paul could be firm and flexible. What a Christian brothers. What a pioneer to help believers through the church life of the one new man. "One judges one day above another; another judges every day alike, Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. He who regards that day, regards it to the Lord; and he who eats, eats to the Lord ... For none of us lives to himself, and none of dies to himself; For whether we live, we live to the Lord, and whether we die, we die to the Lord ..." (v.6,7) Paul turns the focus towards Jesus Christ the Lord.
Paul says do not judge one another because of these practices.
Paul says " Therefore receive one another, as Christ also received you to the glory of God." (15:7) In this way the law of ordinances is abolished yet it is not fully prohibited. It is simple not a criteria of receiving one another in the Christian church. The enmity is abolished. The bad feeling arising that "You are not practicing as I am!" is abolished.Also in the "preferred letter" of Paul of Romans Paul says the saints are discharged from the law. "But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newnes of spirit and not in oldness of letter." (Romans 7:6) Discharged from the law, abolished the law in oridances and commandments therefore is not the establishing of ANTI-law laws. In the same Roman letter there is toleration and accomodation to the believers who are just as "discharge" as Paul.They may be weaker in faith and still cling to ordinances of either Jewish kind or a Gentile kind. The "one new man" calls for love and non-judgmental attitidudes. The one new man calls for saints in different cultures to be brought together in Christ receiving one another as Christ has received them.I see no contradiction between Ephesians 2:14-15 and Romans 14,15.\[b\]"Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Richh,I would like to ask you to expound if you can on a perculiar phrase in \[b\]Galatians 5:23 - " ... against such things there is no law"This little last phrase to Paul's explanation of some of the fruits of the Spirit has always touched me. Here is the whole positive section on fruits with that phrase in context. Why do you think the brother adds this "against such things there is no law"?Doesn't this call for us understanding the whole matter of walking in the Spirit from another angle it seems? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.