Under Grace or Under Law or Under Both Grace & Law

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm not sure what the disagreement here is all about, so I'll just say being under grace doesn't give us permission for breaking the law.

No one is able to perfectly keep the law (no one is perfect) so Christ came to fulfill all of the law (not sin) so he could become an advocate on our behalf. So now he is always standing between the accuser Satan and ...[text shortened]... t give us permission for breaking the law." It seems I can't even (perfectly) obey me. 😕

Thanks .. I agree with all of that. Would you agree that :
- the Doctrine of Christ is the replacement for the Law of Moses?
- even though we are under Grace we still need to follow the Doctrine of Christ.
- even though Christ stands there to mediate for his people, it is possible for the Christian to sin so greviously that God does not forgive in that instance?

There are Bible passages to support all of those.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Thanks .. I agree with all of that. Would you agree that :
- the Doctrine of Christ is the replacement for the Law of Moses?
- even though we are under Grace we still need to follow the Doctrine of Christ.
- even though Christ stands there to mediate for his people, it is possible for the Christian to sin so greviously that God does not forgive in that instance?

There are Bible passages to support all of those.

Would you agree that :

- the Doctrine of Christ is the replacement for the Law of Moses?

I wouldn't call it a 'replacement', because Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law. But I suppose it could be called a replacement in the sense that he clarified our understanding of (the spirit rather than letter of) the law by showing us what God actually wants from us.

- even though we are under Grace we still need to follow the Doctrine of Christ.

The Grace is there if we want it, but I don't believe we are automatically covered by it. Our being under Grace is dependent on whether or not we follow Christs doctrine, so it's not a matter of already the having the one so we should be doing the other. That Grace exists, but accepting and acting on the doctrine of Christ is what puts us under that Grace.. In other words, we can't actually be covered by grace without first accepting the offer of grace, and then go on to following Christ. We can't expect to get away with something like...
"Yeah man, I believe you and accept you as my Lord and Savior! Now go away and make yourself scarce, 'cause I got a hot date this evening with a cute chick... and I don't want you here scaring her away with your self righteous crap."

You can have an umbrella, but if you don't do what it takes to open it up and hold onto it you will get wet... umbrella or no umbrella.

- even though Christ stands there to mediate for his people, it is possible for the Christian to sin so greviously that God does not forgive in that instance?

Paul says if we continue to sin there is no other way of getting ourselves cleaned up again... I don't remember the exact words so I'm paraphrasing.

If many of the 'chosen' can fall away like it says in prophesy, that doesn't tell me we can do whatever we feel like doing after accepting Christ. In fact it's probably worse to accept his forgiveness than not accepting it if we treat it as though it was no big thing. It's not an iron clad get out of jail for free card that can work for us regardless of what we do... or don't do.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]Would you agree that :

- the Doctrine of Christ is the replacement for the Law of Moses?

I wouldn't call it a 'replacement', because Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law. But I suppose it could be called a replacement in the sense that he clarified our understanding of (the spirit rather than letter of) the law by showing us what God ...[text shortened]... t out of jail for free card that can work for us regardless of what we do... or don't do.[/b]

Thanks for that. We certainly have some very similar beliefs which run very contrary to mainstream Christianity.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Thanks for that. We certainly have some very similar beliefs which run very contrary to mainstream Christianity.

I'm not sure what 'mainstream' is supposed to mean. I think of myself as having foundational beliefs rather than being mainstream.

I'm aware of attempts to redefine or altogether ignore parts of the Bible while going to unreasonable lengths in highlighting others... not seeing what is there and seeing what is not there. I understand how the pressures of popular opinion can work to influence a belief, and there are other differences of opinion that appear to be entirely self generating.

But I really don't know how anyone can say my beliefs are mainstream. To me 'mainstream' implies 'majority', and I definitely don't get the impression fundamentalists are in the majority... if anything they appear to be despised, and not only by atheists but also by many Christians.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm not sure what 'mainstream' is supposed to mean. I think of myself as having foundational beliefs rather than being mainstream.

I'm aware of attempts to redefine or altogether ignore parts of the Bible while going to unreasonable lengths in highlighting others... not seeing what is there and seeing what is not there. I understand how the pressures o ...[text shortened]... .. if anything they appear to be despised, and not only by atheists but also by many Christians.

I said your beliefs are NOT mainstream as is mine. There is Catholic mainstream and Protestant mainstream. You would find that there are many here that claim to saved eternally and no sin would be held against them in the day of judgment .. stuff along those lines represent mainstream Protestant doctrine.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I said your beliefs are NOT mainstream as is mine. There is Catholic mainstream and Protestant mainstream. You would find that there are many here that claim to saved eternally and no sin would be held against them in the day of judgment .. stuff along those lines represent mainstream Protestant doctrine.

I said your beliefs are NOT mainstream as is mine.

I know, but I was actually referring to people who think my beliefs ARE mainstream. I didn't realize how you might think I was referring to you until after I posted that message, but I decided to wait until seeing your reply before explaining this.

I agree that we would only need to put 2 or 3 other denominations together for them to add up to more people than we add up to. And I was going to bring up that point in my next message, but you beat me to it... 😠😕😛🙁😉:🙂

But just to be clear, I also want to say there is a difference between hair splitting differences and a general acceptance of Gods plan and offer of forgiveness. And if we take this idea of 'hair spitting' differentiation to it's logical extreme, then it's (theoretically) possible for our hair spitting differences to become so fine that no two people in the world would belong to the same denomination.

So from my perspective (here at RHP and anywhere else) I'm looking for a happy medium that won't violate my own particular sense of propriety.