Other Questions Q. What are traffic rules for? What happens if you break the traffic rules? How are you re-instated in driving; are the traffic rules removed, or are you asked to pay the penalty? If someone were to pay the penalty for you, would you continue to want to break the rules over and over again? or would you be lovingly grateful enough to obey the rules the best you can? How is this analogy related to the forgiving grace of Christ and obedience to His commandments? A. Traffic rules are for public safety; to keep people from harming others by reckless driving. Under normal situations, breaking traffic rules does not disqualify one from driving. This prohibits it from being a true analogy to "sin" and "atonement." One who breaks traffic rules must pay the penalty. One would not desire to break traffic rules over and over again, simply because one does not desire to endanger others or harm oneself. There is true analogy here because traffic rules are men's rules, and have no moral substance. However, God's laws are moral laws, and breaking them involves "sin." Sin does not require a "fine." It requires either "punishment," or "forgiveness." Before Christ's atonement, all men are subject to law, and are slaves to sin and its punishment because all are sinners, (Romans 3:23). After Christ's atonement, believers are net under law because Christ ended the rule of law for believers, (Romans 10:4; Ephesians 2:15). Believers live under Christ's "Law," or principle, of Love. They do not do things formerly prohibited by God's law, simply because they love God and man, and "love fulfills the law," (Romans13:8-10). Believers do not focus on learning and obeying commandments. They focus on avoiding anything that violates love for God and man. Q. Did Jesus Christ come to earth to save His people in their sins, or from their sins? A. Jesus saved us from our sins. And He removed law as the basis for our being "righteous" (i.e. without sin). He brought a "righteousness that is apart from law," (Romans 3:21). Righteousness, or sinless, is no longer attached to law; it is "apart from law." It's basis now is not commandments and ordinances, (Ephesians 2:15), but love for God and man. Those who have been released from obligation to law, nonetheless fulfill the law because they love. Our focus, in Christ, is not outward - toward an external law of commandments. Our focus is internal - we have hearts full of love, implanted there by the Holy Spirit, (Romans 5:5). We are now able to do naturally, what we could never do before Christ saved us. We can actually overcome sin by just doing what is right - or loving - toward God and man. Q. You talk about being free from "law." I was told that the Bible means that we are free from only the Law of Moses, but not free from God's other laws. What is the truth? A. For generations, this has been the primary argument of those who cannot accept that believers are free from law, to be self-governed under Christ's "law," or "principle," of love. But it will not stand close examination. Throughout the first 10 chapters of Romans, Paul's argument is that Christ ended man's approach to God on the basis of obedience/law/works. His point is not that Christ ended one's approach to God via Moses' law only, but that Christ ended all possibility of coming to God via any law. His original readers were Jewish and Gentile believers who together formed the church. To make his point that Christ ended all law as a means for being righteous, Paul primarily used the generic word "nomos" without an article. This is a reference to law in general, all law, any law. Law ceased to be a means by which anyone could become, or remain, right with God. To illustrate his point, he used the specific law of Moses, referring to it as "the law.' Here he used the word nomos, with the article, to signify a particular law. If we trace the words Paul uses, through these chapters, we discover that he uses the generic reference to law 43 times, and refers specifically to Moses' law, only 31 times. This show that his main point has to do with generic law, and not with particular law. Thus, Moses' law, the greatest law ever given, is simply used as an illustration of the general principle Paul wishes to establish. In Romans 10:4, Paul writes, "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to those who believe." In this sentence, he uses the generic word "nomos" without the article. The phrase, "end of law for righteousness," means the end of law as a means for being right with God." When he says "to those who believe," he limits this principle to believers in Christ. This means that law, all law, has been abolished as a means for relating to God. Those who come to God must come through faith and grace, or not at all. Unbelievers are still required to obey God's Law. If they do not do so, that law condemns them. (1Tim. 1:9). But when they accept Christ, they are rescued from obligation to law, and enabled, through love, to honor all God's desires for right relationships with God and man. This is "righteousness." The unbeliever pursues "righteousness" by obeying law. The believer pursues righteousness through love. Q. If nothing is unclean of itself, what about homosexual sins? A. First, remember that the Inspired Apostle Paul, is the one who said "all things are clean...nothing is unclean of itself...all things are lawful..." (Romans 14:14, 20; 1 Corinthians6:12; 10:23). So this principle is true, regardless of how it strikes us. What this means is simply that any act, considered by itself, apart from any connection with its affect on others, or its motivation, is "clean" or "innocent. Moral content of any act derives from its connection to the motives of the actor, or the act's effect on others. It has nothing to do with the inherent nature of the act itself. So called "homosexual" acts give us a perfect foil for testing this thesis. Let's start with kissing. The mere act of kissing is inherently innocent. Agreed? If heterosexuals kiss, we have a heterosexual kiss. If homosexuals kiss, we have a homosexual kiss. How about hugging. A hug is just as hug, with no moral content. A hug becomes a "homosexual hug" if it involves two people of the same sex. Holding hands? Neither homosexual nor heterosexual, inherently. If homosexuals hold hands, we have a homosexual act. So what about oral sex or anal sex? If heterosexuals do it, (as millions do), the act is "heterosexual" in nature. Not because of the inherent nature of the act, but by nature of the people engaging in the act. If homosexuals engage in oral or anal sex, then the act is homosexual, ONLY because two people of the same sex do it. So ANY act can be a homosexual act, if it is done by two people of the same sex. It's not the inherent nature of the act itself. It's the nature of the people doing the act. So, there is no such thing as "a homosexual act," in the sense that phrase is used so often. All sex acts are inherently, morally neutral. All moral content comes from the people involved, and their motives. Q. If we are "free from law," does this mean we do not have to go to church services or tithe? A. We are indeed free from law, (Romans10:4; 3:21,22; Ephesians 2:15). Therefore we do not have a NT equivalent of commands or laws that we are obligated to obey, with the sole exception of Christ's Law of Love for God and man. All references to church attendance, monetary gifts, are therefore in the realm of voluntary expressions of love. If one can express love for God by going to a worship service, please go. If not, stay home and express your love in solitude. If one desires the fellowship of brothers and sisters, go be with them in church services. If one cannot be edified by such association, it is better to remain at home. Verses like Hebrews 10:25, have been weapons in Pastor's hands for generations, by which people have been bludgeoned into "coming to church," regardless of the spiritual effect it has on people's spirits. These verses have been used as "laws" that supposedly mandate certain behaviors. But Hebrews10:25 and similar verses are simply exhortations, that encourage us to do what is generally good for our spiritual growth. Rather than laws that mandate behavior, we have principles and recommendations that point the way to spiritual fulfillment and progress. But They are general exhortations, and suggestions, not laws. One is free to evaluate them as suggestions, and determine if following such suggestions will be personally beneficial. One is also free to either follow such exhortations, or not. They are not commands which must be obeyed. Not all people can benefit from a church service, because of the nature of the thing itself. We personally know several people who have tried diligently to find a church where they can experience edifying fellowship with saints, and profitable teaching from a Pastor. They have given up because their souls are not nourished as they should be. They are better off to stay home and commune with the Lord in private, or to have a few friends join them for spiritual conversation, prayer, etc. This is so much more in tune with the spirit of Christ's Royal Law of Liberty, than the prevailing idea that "we must go to church because God commands it." The same is true with tithing. Tithing is strictly an OT law, that was not "brought over" into the NT. The concept of coerced giving of ten percent, is not in the NT. All giving referenced in the NT is strictly voluntary, and encouraged as an act of love toward saints in need. All modern preaching that says, "You must give to support this ministry. If you love God you will give..." is human law-making, for the sake of maintaining the personal kingdoms of religious professionals. No Christian has any obligation to "obey" such "laws" or support such Pastors, their programs, or their churches. Q. If Jesus did not give us any laws, why did He say, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments?" A. Search the NT and you will find no "laws" given by Christ, except for His "new commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you..." (John 13:34). All references to "the law of Christ," relate to this singular law. By keeping this law, one keeps all other moral laws God ever gave. So all codified law is comprehended in this one spiritual "law" or principle, of love. It is a "law" in the same sense that gravity is a "natural law." In the same sense as the natural "law" of thermodynamics. Such "laws of nature" define the manner in which nature normally operates. In the same way, love is the principle by which Christ's Kingdom operates. One does not literally "obey" this law. Christ's love is planted within a believer's heart by the Holy Spirit, and the believer simply begins to operate naturally by this internal principle. "Obeying" Christ's "command" to love one another, requires that we respond to what we know is best for others, determining to do them no harm. When we do so, we have obeyed Christ's command. Paul wrote the following to the Corinthians: "To the Jews, I became as a Jew that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, though not being myself under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law." (1 Corinthians 9:20, 21). Recall that Paul said, "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone who believes," (Romans 10:4), thereby ending the possibility that believers in Christ can become righteous by obeying law. This does not mean that believers no longer live under any sort of Divine rule. God's law for believers is the law of His Son. We now live under the Royal Law of King Jesus, His Royal Law of Liberty, His Law of Love. James writes that we "are fulfilling the royal law," if we obey the Scripture that says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," then He writes that we are to "so speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty," (Jas. 2:8, 12). This makes it clear. The "law of Christ" under which we, and Paul, and all believers live, and will be judged, is the Royal Law, the Law of Liberty, which requires that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves. This is the "new commandment," or new law, that Jesus gave as the foundation of His kingdom (John 13:34,35). When we live by love, we live under Christ's law, which is now "God's law" for all believers. This is the only law Christ gave us. Isn't it simple? Here is a "law" we can truly live with. Q. You mention several things that many people consider to be sin, but you don't say anything about words like "golly," "gee," "gosh," and so forth. Aren't these just sanitized curse words? Shouldn't we avoid them? A. Words have no inherent meaning, therefore no inherent morality. Words are included in Paul's statement that "all things are clean..." (Romans14:14, 20). Word meanings are not inherent, but derivative. People devise various compositions of vowels and consonants, then assign meaning to these created "words." Apart from the meaning one intends to convey by a created word, it has no meaning. So words have no meaning except in the mind of the one who either speaks them, or one who hears them. For example, what do you understand if I say the word "durazno"? If you speak Spanish, you will think of a "peach." If you do not know Spanish, this word has no meaning at all to you. It means something only to those who know to associate "peach," with that particular composition of letters. Words like "gee" "gosh", "golly," and so forth, have no meaning except in the minds of the speaker or the hearer. Those who oppose using such words, argue that they are euphemisms for Jesus, God, etc. and therefore using them is equivalent to "taking God's name in vain." These words do not inherently mean, "God" or "Jesus." They are not euphemisms for the Divine names, unless that is the speaker's intention. Such words may have begun, and many of them probably did begin, as euphemisms. But a word's meaning is found in its current usage, not in its origin, because words change meaning over time. This is why dictionaries list some definitions as "archaic," which means "no longer acceptable usage." Eventually a word that had one meaning when it originated, may come have the opposite meaning. A good example is the word "prevent." When the KJ translation came out, "prevent" meant "go before." Today, it means "stop from occurring." So one has to be careful about how one interprets Paul's statement that, "we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not ("prevent"? or "precede"?) those who have fallen asleep," (1 Thessalonians 4:15). There is no need to avoid such words as "gee" "gosh", "golly," if one is thinking of possible "sin" attached to them. They are not "curse words" in any sense. Whatever may have been the motive of those who invented them, they no longer contain any reference to God or Jesus, except in the mind of those who attach such meaning to them. Those who do not assign such meaning to them, have no responsibility to avoid them. Those who do assign such meaning, must decide if using them is a violation of love for God, and act accordingly. And they must not judge those whose choice differs, (Romans 14:1-10).
Q. What are traffic rules for? What happens if you break the traffic rules? How are you re-instated in driving; are the traffic rules removed, or are you asked to pay the penalty? If someone were to pay the penalty for you, would you continue to want to break the rules over and over again? or would you be lovingly grateful enough to obey the rules the best you can? How is this analogy related to the forgiving grace of Christ and obedience to His commandments? A. Traffic rules are for public safety; to keep people from harming others by reckless driving. Under normal situations, breaking traffic rules does not disqualify one from driving. This prohibits it from being a true analogy to "sin" and "atonement." One who breaks traffic rules must pay the penalty. One would not desire to break traffic rules over and over again, simply because one does not desire to endanger others or harm oneself. There is true analogy here because traffic rules are men's rules, and have no moral substance. However, God's laws are moral laws, and breaking them involves "sin." Sin does not require a "fine." It requires either "punishment," or "forgiveness." Before Christ's atonement, all men are subject to law, and are slaves to sin and its punishment because all are sinners, (Romans 3:23). After Christ's atonement, believers are net under law because Christ ended the rule of law for believers, (Romans 10:4; Ephesians 2:15). Believers live under Christ's "Law," or principle, of Love. They do not do things formerly prohibited by God's law, simply because they love God and man, and "love fulfills the law," (Romans13:8-10). Believers do not focus on learning and obeying commandments. They focus on avoiding anything that violates love for God and man. Q. Did Jesus Christ come to earth to save His people in their sins, or from their sins? A. Jesus saved us from our sins. And He removed law as the basis for our being "righteous" (i.e. without sin). He brought a "righteousness that is apart from law," (Romans 3:21). Righteousness, or sinless, is no longer attached to law; it is "apart from law." It's basis now is not commandments and ordinances, (Ephesians 2:15), but love for God and man. Those who have been released from obligation to law, nonetheless fulfill the law because they love. Our focus, in Christ, is not outward - toward an external law of commandments. Our focus is internal - we have hearts full of love, implanted there by the Holy Spirit, (Romans 5:5). We are now able to do naturally, what we could never do before Christ saved us. We can actually overcome sin by just doing what is right - or loving - toward God and man. Q. You talk about being free from "law." I was told that the Bible means that we are free from only the Law of Moses, but not free from God's other laws. What is the truth? A. For generations, this has been the primary argument of those who cannot accept that believers are free from law, to be self-governed under Christ's "law," or "principle," of love. But it will not stand close examination. Throughout the first 10 chapters of Romans, Paul's argument is that Christ ended man's approach to God on the basis of obedience/law/works. His point is not that Christ ended one's approach to God via Moses' law only, but that Christ ended all possibility of coming to God via any law. His original readers were Jewish and Gentile believers who together formed the church. To make his point that Christ ended all law as a means for being righteous, Paul primarily used the generic word "nomos" without an article. This is a reference to law in general, all law, any law. Law ceased to be a means by which anyone could become, or remain, right with God. To illustrate his point, he used the specific law of Moses, referring to it as "the law.' Here he used the word nomos, with the article, to signify a particular law. If we trace the words Paul uses, through these chapters, we discover that he uses the generic reference to law 43 times, and refers specifically to Moses' law, only 31 times. This show that his main point has to do with generic law, and not with particular law. Thus, Moses' law, the greatest law ever given, is simply used as an illustration of the general principle Paul wishes to establish. In Romans 10:4, Paul writes, "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to those who believe." In this sentence, he uses the generic word "nomos" without the article. The phrase, "end of law for righteousness," means the end of law as a means for being right with God." When he says "to those who believe," he limits this principle to believers in Christ. This means that law, all law, has been abolished as a means for relating to God. Those who come to God must come through faith and grace, or not at all. Unbelievers are still required to obey God's Law. If they do not do so, that law condemns them. (1Tim. 1:9). But when they accept Christ, they are rescued from obligation to law, and enabled, through love, to honor all God's desires for right relationships with God and man. This is "righteousness." The unbeliever pursues "righteousness" by obeying law. The believer pursues righteousness through love. Q. If nothing is unclean of itself, what about homosexual sins? A. First, remember that the Inspired Apostle Paul, is the one who said "all things are clean...nothing is unclean of itself...all things are lawful..." (Romans 14:14, 20; 1 Corinthians6:12; 10:23). So this principle is true, regardless of how it strikes us. What this means is simply that any act, considered by itself, apart from any connection with its affect on others, or its motivation, is "clean" or "innocent. Moral content of any act derives from its connection to the motives of the actor, or the act's effect on others. It has nothing to do with the inherent nature of the act itself. So called "homosexual" acts give us a perfect foil for testing this thesis. Let's start with kissing. The mere act of kissing is inherently innocent. Agreed? If heterosexuals kiss, we have a heterosexual kiss. If homosexuals kiss, we have a homosexual kiss. How about hugging. A hug is just as hug, with no moral content. A hug becomes a "homosexual hug" if it involves two people of the same sex. Holding hands? Neither homosexual nor heterosexual, inherently. If homosexuals hold hands, we have a homosexual act. So what about oral sex or anal sex? If heterosexuals do it, (as millions do), the act is "heterosexual" in nature. Not because of the inherent nature of the act, but by nature of the people engaging in the act. If homosexuals engage in oral or anal sex, then the act is homosexual, ONLY because two people of the same sex do it. So ANY act can be a homosexual act, if it is done by two people of the same sex. It's not the inherent nature of the act itself. It's the nature of the people doing the act. So, there is no such thing as "a homosexual act," in the sense that phrase is used so often. All sex acts are inherently, morally neutral. All moral content comes from the people involved, and their motives. Q. If we are "free from law," does this mean we do not have to go to church services or tithe? A. We are indeed free from law, (Romans10:4; 3:21,22; Ephesians 2:15). Therefore we do not have a NT equivalent of commands or laws that we are obligated to obey, with the sole exception of Christ's Law of Love for God and man. All references to church attendance, monetary gifts, are therefore in the realm of voluntary expressions of love. If one can express love for God by going to a worship service, please go. If not, stay home and express your love in solitude. If one desires the fellowship of brothers and sisters, go be with them in church services. If one cannot be edified by such association, it is better to remain at home. Verses like Hebrews 10:25, have been weapons in Pastor's hands for generations, by which people have been bludgeoned into "coming to church," regardless of the spiritual effect it has on people's spirits. These verses have been used as "laws" that supposedly mandate certain behaviors. But Hebrews10:25 and similar verses are simply exhortations, that encourage us to do what is generally good for our spiritual growth. Rather than laws that mandate behavior, we have principles and recommendations that point the way to spiritual fulfillment and progress. But They are general exhortations, and suggestions, not laws. One is free to evaluate them as suggestions, and determine if following such suggestions will be personally beneficial. One is also free to either follow such exhortations, or not. They are not commands which must be obeyed. Not all people can benefit from a church service, because of the nature of the thing itself. We personally know several people who have tried diligently to find a church where they can experience edifying fellowship with saints, and profitable teaching from a Pastor. They have given up because their souls are not nourished as they should be. They are better off to stay home and commune with the Lord in private, or to have a few friends join them for spiritual conversation, prayer, etc. This is so much more in tune with the spirit of Christ's Royal Law of Liberty, than the prevailing idea that "we must go to church because God commands it." The same is true with tithing. Tithing is strictly an OT law, that was not "brought over" into the NT. The concept of coerced giving of ten percent, is not in the NT. All giving referenced in the NT is strictly voluntary, and encouraged as an act of love toward saints in need. All modern preaching that says, "You must give to support this ministry. If you love God you will give..." is human law-making, for the sake of maintaining the personal kingdoms of religious professionals. No Christian has any obligation to "obey" such "laws" or support such Pastors, their programs, or their churches. Q. If Jesus did not give us any laws, why did He say, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments?" A. Search the NT and you will find no "laws" given by Christ, except for His "new commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you..." (John 13:34). All references to "the law of Christ," relate to this singular law. By keeping this law, one keeps all other moral laws God ever gave. So all codified law is comprehended in this one spiritual "law" or principle, of love. It is a "law" in the same sense that gravity is a "natural law." In the same sense as the natural "law" of thermodynamics. Such "laws of nature" define the manner in which nature normally operates. In the same way, love is the principle by which Christ's Kingdom operates. One does not literally "obey" this law. Christ's love is planted within a believer's heart by the Holy Spirit, and the believer simply begins to operate naturally by this internal principle. "Obeying" Christ's "command" to love one another, requires that we respond to what we know is best for others, determining to do them no harm. When we do so, we have obeyed Christ's command. Paul wrote the following to the Corinthians: "To the Jews, I became as a Jew that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, though not being myself under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law." (1 Corinthians 9:20, 21). Recall that Paul said, "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone who believes," (Romans 10:4), thereby ending the possibility that believers in Christ can become righteous by obeying law. This does not mean that believers no longer live under any sort of Divine rule. God's law for believers is the law of His Son. We now live under the Royal Law of King Jesus, His Royal Law of Liberty, His Law of Love. James writes that we "are fulfilling the royal law," if we obey the Scripture that says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," then He writes that we are to "so speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty," (Jas. 2:8, 12). This makes it clear. The "law of Christ" under which we, and Paul, and all believers live, and will be judged, is the Royal Law, the Law of Liberty, which requires that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves. This is the "new commandment," or new law, that Jesus gave as the foundation of His kingdom (John 13:34,35). When we live by love, we live under Christ's law, which is now "God's law" for all believers. This is the only law Christ gave us. Isn't it simple? Here is a "law" we can truly live with. Q. You mention several things that many people consider to be sin, but you don't say anything about words like "golly," "gee," "gosh," and so forth. Aren't these just sanitized curse words? Shouldn't we avoid them? A. Words have no inherent meaning, therefore no inherent morality. Words are included in Paul's statement that "all things are clean..." (Romans14:14, 20). Word meanings are not inherent, but derivative. People devise various compositions of vowels and consonants, then assign meaning to these created "words." Apart from the meaning one intends to convey by a created word, it has no meaning. So words have no meaning except in the mind of the one who either speaks them, or one who hears them. For example, what do you understand if I say the word "durazno"? If you speak Spanish, you will think of a "peach." If you do not know Spanish, this word has no meaning at all to you. It means something only to those who know to associate "peach," with that particular composition of letters. Words like "gee" "gosh", "golly," and so forth, have no meaning except in the minds of the speaker or the hearer. Those who oppose using such words, argue that they are euphemisms for Jesus, God, etc. and therefore using them is equivalent to "taking God's name in vain." These words do not inherently mean, "God" or "Jesus." They are not euphemisms for the Divine names, unless that is the speaker's intention. Such words may have begun, and many of them probably did begin, as euphemisms. But a word's meaning is found in its current usage, not in its origin, because words change meaning over time. This is why dictionaries list some definitions as "archaic," which means "no longer acceptable usage." Eventually a word that had one meaning when it originated, may come have the opposite meaning. A good example is the word "prevent." When the KJ translation came out, "prevent" meant "go before." Today, it means "stop from occurring." So one has to be careful about how one interprets Paul's statement that, "we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not ("prevent"? or "precede"?) those who have fallen asleep," (1 Thessalonians 4:15). There is no need to avoid such words as "gee" "gosh", "golly," if one is thinking of possible "sin" attached to them. They are not "curse words" in any sense. Whatever may have been the motive of those who invented them, they no longer contain any reference to God or Jesus, except in the mind of those who attach such meaning to them. Those who do not assign such meaning to them, have no responsibility to avoid them. Those who do assign such meaning, must decide if using them is a violation of love for God, and act accordingly. And they must not judge those whose choice differs, (Romans 14:1-10).