What Does The Bible Say Regarding The Law for Christians

Introduction
There is a common perception among Christians that the law of Moses and the Old Testament in general are only in the Bible for historical purposes, or something to that effect.  Many will reply with something along the lines of "we're under grace now, not the law".  The problem is they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. On the other hand, there are those that say we still need to keep the law, feasts and festivals etc.  Let's look at what the Bible says regarding the law. 

What is meant by the "law"?
Generally, this will refer to the Ten Commandments, found in Exodus ch 20 as well as other laws and ordinances in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  These laws prescribed the types of punishments for certain types of sin, ordinances for the priests, dealing with sacrifices and offerings, various ways to keep clean and many other things. Many of the things mentioned would seem harsh by todays standards.

Saved by Grace, through faith alone
There are so many places in the New Testament that salvation is of faith and faith alone. Paul spent a great deal of his epistles hammering this very subject.  Here are but a few examples:
Saved by grace through faith, not our works Ephesians 2:8,9
By His mercy Titus 3:5
Justified by faith without the law Romans 3:28
Grace or works? one or the other, it cant be part both Romans 11:6

All Scripture is still relevant
Profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction II Timothy 3:16
Not subject to your private interpretation II Peter 1:20
God promised to preserve His Word Psalms 12:6,7
Sodom and Ghomora still an example today Jude 1:7
Things that happened to their fathers are to be examples for us I Corinthians 10:11

Paul dealt with Judiazers
In the book of Galatians, Paul dealt with those that tried to bring believers back under jewish traditions with feasts, observing new moons etc.

What then serveth the law?
So if a Christian is to be justified by faith alone, yet ALL Scripture is still relevant for us, how  then should they view all the things mentioned in Exodus through Deuteronomy. As mentioned in the beginning, many will typically throw the baby out with the bathwater, casting aside punishments for adultery, theft or even murder.
Do whatever we want because we're not under the law? No! Romans 6:14,15
Paul accused of saying, do evil.  Romans 3:8,9
However, the law is still good, if used lawfully, according to the gospel I Timothy 1:8-11
Jesus referenced the law in Matthew 15:4 which is referring to Ex 20:12 and Ex 21:17

Summary
- One is saved by grace through faith, without the deeds of the law
- Christians are not under the law, but under grace
- Being under grace doesn't give us the right to do whatever we want
- The law is still good and we can look to it for examples of what is right and wrong for those things that still apply, eg.  murder etc.
- America for most of its early history used the Old Testament laws as a template for it's own laws. Some were taken straight out of Leviticus.

Baptism Is Important But It Doesn't Save

Does Baptism save?

The short answer is - NO, salvation is only by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is a false doctrine out there known as "baptismal regeneration". It teaches that without being baptized you are not going to heaven. Those that hold to this generally also believe that one can lose their salvation, which is also false.  The aspect of baptism being a necessary part of salvation is like many other false doctrines, which come about by taking verses out of context or using symbolism (and also often out of context) in place of clear scriptures. Also, the reverse can often be used to promote false doctrine - that of taking something literal when symbolism is being implied. Baptism is simply a picture of one's public acknowledgement of belief and trust in the gospel and pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. See Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 which is clearly symbolic, unless you try to imply that you literally need to be buried also, or circumcised? Baptism alone or in part does not save someone.

Salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ 

John 3:16-18
whosoever believeth, nothing else is mentioned in order to receive eternal life.
Acts 8:35-38 
Phillip responded to the eunuch when he asked what prevented him from getting baptized as that only IF he believed with all his heart.
Acts 16:29-33
Clear question as to what one MUST do to be saved. Answer is clear, just believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 3:28
A man is justified by faith, not faith + baptism, nor baptism alone
Romans 4:5-8
To him that worketh not.  Faith alone for remission of sins past, present and future!

In fact, the whole of the Scriptures is that salvation comes simply by faith.  Some would say also that it was "different in the Old Testament...you had to keep the law and do sacrifices".  To that, we find the following:

Hebrews 10:1
The law was a shadow of things to come 
Hebrews 10:4
The blood of bulls and goats should not take away sins
Hebrews 9:22
without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins

So, if blood must be shed for the remission of sins and yet the blood of bulls and goats wouldn't do it, who or what's blood is required?
The answer is - the blood of Jesus! 1 John 1:7

So, let's look at some areas of Scripture where those advocating this false doctrine will have you turn to "prove" their point.

Scriptures used to advocate "Baptismal regeneration"

Mark 1:1-4
The remission of sins = forgiveness of sins. The way you get pardoned of sins = baptism? So, at first glance, this seems to contradict Acts 10:43 that says by believing we should get remission of sin. The Word of God has no contradictions. If you find something at first glance appears to be a contradiction, you either have a corrupted text (which is why I stick with the KJV) or you simply need to study.
So then just what IS John's baptism being mentioned here in Mark I? The key to this is found in the first part of Acts 19 where we find a passage that has Paul asking if they at Corinth had received the Holy ghost yet? They replied that they didn't even know there was a Holy ghost! Ephesians 1:13 makes it clear that one must believe and trust the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is then that you receive the Holy ghost. Then Paul asks them unto what they were baptized, and their reply was unto John's baptism. Paul then confirmed that John baptized with the baptism of repentance saying that they should believe on the one that should come after him. When they heard this, THEN they got baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. I find it remarkable that the label Baptist was first in the form of ana-baptist, which means "re-baptize and it was a derogatory term! Only later was the term "ana" dropped. Yet here Paul is telling people that unless they believe FIRST then get baptized, then baptism is of no use. This is why we need to do like those Bereans in Acts 17:11 and search the scriptures daily to see if these things be so!

I Peter 3:21
This seems to be the favorite of those advocating baptism being necessary to go to heaven. First, this chapter is being addressed to those that were already saved. Second, this individual verse makes it clear that baptism is a like figure, or symbol of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In other words, it is figurative.

Acts 2:38
Again, this passage some use to claim that it is baptism that gives us the remission of sins.  It's worth noting that it is this same chapter some use to advocate what is known as "speaking in tongues" and typically point to this chapter (verse 4) but if you keep reading after verse 4, it's clear that this simply means other languages, not some gibberish that nobody can understand.  Ok, so what of baptism here?  Again, how does one receive remission of sins? It is only the blood of Jesus and believing on Him! So, verse 38 where it says "Repent, and be baptized", Peter is not saying anything different than Paul nor is Peter contradicting any other part of Scripture. We see the same sequence of events - believe THEN baptism. Also, like elsewhere, if we KEEP READING, this is made clear, as in just a few verses later, the Bible says in verse 41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized".  Jesus nails this in John 3:1-6 describing how someone becomes born again.

Mark 16:16
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Another of the go-to verses for those advocating baptism being necessary to go to heaven. Where they fall into error is taking this verse literally. So then one must ask that if one believes but is not baptized what then? So, they don't go to hell because they believe, but don't go to heaven because they weren't baptized?  Sorry, there is no "purgatory" either.  Ok, so if you take this literally, then let's look at another passage about baptism in Colossians chapter 2

2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:  

2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

If you take verse 12 literally, then will you also take verse 11 literally?  Ouch!

Conclusion

There are lots of things the Bible talks about what we should do after believing, but there is one thing and only one thing that we must do to go heaven.  Anything we add to that one thing is the equivalent to saying that the gospel of Jesus Christ isn't enough. There is a reason John 3:16 is one of the most famous verses in the Bible.  It is so simple yet so powerful.  Simply believe and put ALL your trust in Jesus and what HE did in order to avoid hell and go to heaven instead.  

Common Contentions

Below are a few key subjects that can cause contentions/arguments over what the Bible teaches. Many Baptists today hold the following views:
- The rapture will occur BEFORE Daniel's 70th week begins
- The Jews are still God's chosen people
- Homosexuals can be saved
- We're not to judge anyone
- America is still a Christian nation, a shining city on a hill.  We just have a problem with democrats.

Below are a few areas of Scripture that address these subjects.  Also note that when addressing someone who is likely going to be older than you or is at very least saved and a brother/sister in Christ...reprove with scripture instead of rebuke. In other words, be respectful.
- Rebuke not an Elder, I Timothy 5:1
- Reprove with scripture, II Timothy 3:16

Don't judge
- Reprove not a scorner, Proverbs 9:8
- Judge righteous judgement, John 7:24
- Pull the beam out of thine own eye, Matthew 7:3,4
- Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, Matthew 7:6

Kings and kingdoms
- Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, Isaiah 10:1
- By me kings rule, Proverbs 8:15,16
- Jehu rebukes Jehoshaphat, II Chron 19:2
- Obey the laws of the land, Romans ch 13
- Judge not for man, but for the Lord, II Chronicles 19:6

Israel
- Genesis 12 vs II Chronicles 19:2, Galatians 3:16,28,29, Romans 9:6

Reprobates
- Worthy of death, Romans 1, same as Leviticus 20:13
- Don't negotiate with terrorists, I Kings 20
- No rest for the wise man that contends with a fool, Proverbs 29:9

Rapture BEFORE tribulation
- II Thessalonians ch 2 is clear the antichrist must be revealed first, and that doesn't happen until the middle of the 7 year period known as Daniel's 70th week.
- Jesus is speaking to Christians in Matthew 24

Trusting Science and Talking to Agnostics

 Trusting in science 

The world and society we live in today is part of a paradigm, which is a way of looking at things.  It rests ones understanding - on a set of accepted truths. Go back through the centuries and the paradigms have changed.  Medical treatments just a hundred years ago involved using electrical shock for various ailments. Go back farther, some treatments involved blood-letting, which today would be considered foolish and barbaric.  Since the Bible was also more widely believed in earlier times, society today tends to discount both.  In other words, since people in the past believed various myths, eg. trolls and goblins, and now we know better, therefore the Bible is simply a legacy of our past that was superstitious. The thinking goes on to conclude that we are progressing in our knowledge and it is our own understanding of the world and the science that goes with it which we must put our confidence in.  Science, over time promises to lead us to the answers that once were steeped in religious myth.

Where science falls short

It's common today, at least in the western world to put faith in technology and science.  Unless it can be proven physically or empirically, it's either a fabricated lie or opinion, or something to that effect. It is then relegated to the sidelines unless it agrees with today's paradigm, its theories and mathematical models. The world we live in today, while having produced great wonders of technology, has also failed to explain what the Bible refers to as evil.  How can there be so much pain and suffering in the world if a god really exists?  Where did we come from and why are we here? 

Polite Disbelief

At best, those who trust science for answers to age-old problems, will lump all the worlds religions in the same basket.  Then they will proclaim that all religions basically teach the same thing - be kind to others, do good things and behave yourself.  This just happens to be the direction many of the established religions are taking also, including those claiming Christianity, and will ultimately lead to a common religion for the whole world.  This includes especially the Catholic church, who for years now has been attempting to bring the worlds religions together. Some distinguish between an agnostic and an atheist, but the Bible only regards two distinctions on the matter of belief - you either believe the God of the Bible or you don't. 

Come, let us reason together

The God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, invites you to know the truth.  Go ahead, try to investigate the claims of the Bible, see if you can prove them wrong.  Just be honest with yourself.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Things to consider:

(1) What are the odds that the world we live in would be created with so much complexity, by mere coincidence?

(2) What are the odds that so many cultures in the world, separated by great distances, have a story of a great flood in their distant past. 

(3) What of the scientists and geologists who refute the idea of billions of years for the creation of the grand canyon and accept the Biblical account of a great flood, which involves not a small amount of water over long periods of time but instead, involved large amounts of water over a relatively short time.

(4) What are the odds that there were men who lived hundreds and hundreds of years before Jesus was born, who foretold of someone the Bible calls a messiah.  They tell of the timeframe of his birth, the location, the family, what others would say of him, the things he would say and do, how he would be forsaken, and how he would be killed.

(5) What are the odds that there would be an ancient canal diverting water from the Nile in Egypt that to this day, bears the name of Joseph. The Bible refers to a man named Joseph who was a Hebrew sold into slavery, and yet the Egyptian pharaoh elevated him above all his other men and helped Egypt through a great famine. This same Joseph the Bible describes as having interpreted Pharaoh's dream which involved cows and the Nile river and a resulting time of plenty followed by a time of famine.

(6) What of the archeologists that accept the Biblical account of Moses and the Exodus? Why would they do that?  Maybe you should investigate?

(7) What of the independent, non-Christian accounts of Jesus and his followers, such as the Roman senator Tacitus? 

Summary

Science can neither prove nor dis-prove the existence of God, or the miracles and diety of Jesus Christ. However, we do have written, first-hand accounts of the things said by Jesus and his miracles witnessed by scores of individuals, all contained in the gospels of the Bible. All of creation itself bears witness of a creator.  In the end, it comes down to whether someone is willing to place their faith in something they cannot see.  

Psalms 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

The Trail of Blood - 2007 Sermon by Pastor Dan Ferrell

 I'm Baptist Because...

Love this old sermon from a few years ago.  Lots of history covered in just over an hour.  The phrase that has stuck with me - "history is what you know, heritage is what you keep!".  Mentions groups like the Waldenses. Long story short - there have always been groups of believers that shared the same basic beliefs of Baptists, long before they were called by that name.

Early American Law and Punishment

 Crime and Punishment in 1650 America

Go back far enough in American history and you will find laws and the punishments for breaking them, taken straight out of the Bible!

source: The Code of 1650, being a compilation of the earliest laws and orders of the General Court of Connecticut, archive.org, page 30

Dispensationalism, Scofield, and Ryrie

Dispelling Dispensationalism

The word dispensation appears only 4 times in the Bible, and only in the New Testament: I Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10 & 3:2 and Colossians 1:25.  In each case it is referring to a giving of the gospel.  From here, depending on who you read or listen to, the root word became an "ism" to a doctrine or teaching called Dispensationalism.  

This post is simply a collection of some of my thoughts on the subject. I've also included a few examples of things to highlight in the various "study Bibles" that promote this doctrine.  However, there is a documentary that pretty well sums up both what this doctrine teaches, but where it began as well.  Watch this when you get a chance.

Dispensation of Heresy

Overview

The basic premise of Dispensational-ism is that there are a number of different identifiable periods in the Bible in which God dealt with man in different ways. What the Bible does teach however, is that God spake with man differently in times past, as we read in Hebrews 1

1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,  

1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

However, the key doctrines of Dispensationalism, are more or less:
- A number of distinct "dispensations", typically 7
- A distinction between Israel and the church
- A rapture of believers before the end times begin, although some do vary on this.
- Salvation required works in the Old Testament and will again also in the end times, although this view varies also and is less common today.

Supposedly, I Timothy 2:15 justifies dividing up the Bible into these dispensations.

Variations of Dispensationalism

There seem to be at least two that I am aware of and the primary distinction being that of whether salvation was always by faith alone, or did it involve works of some sort in the Old Testament.

Who is CI Scofield and why should I care

Cyrus Scofield is a name who most are familiar with only by way of his "study Bible".  I wont focus on his personal life, but merely on his work that is included in his and subsequent "study Bibles". That work being that of notes and references included in various "study Bibles". These notes and references suggest and teach the doctrine of dispensationalism and a pre-tribulation rapture, among others. 

Scofield Study Bible

At one time, it was a very popular study Bible, and to this day still influences many pastors, especially Baptists. A while back, while researching the issues with Scofield and his footnotes, I decided to find both an original and a newer version on eBay.  I managed to find an original 1917 Scofield, still in the box!

Problems with Scofield and his Bible. 

First, see the photos below of the Introduction in the "Old Scofield", specifically section XI.  Scofield is questioning the Authorized Version (KJV) in which he is placing his notes.  He states he would prefer to use the newest version (then it was the RV). He then goes on to heap praise on men like Westcott and Hort for "clearing the Greek Textus Receptus (TR) of minor inaccuracies".

Old Scofield preface - iii

Old Scofield preface - iv

 

The New Scofield

This is a "new" Scofield, from 1967, yes they are different editions. Those familiar with the Scofield Bible are aware of the "updates".

Key things to note in the Scofield

- Both the original or "Old" Scofield and the "new" casts doubts on the authority and infallibility of the KJV translation accuracy
- Both the Old and New Scofield promote notion that the physical nation of Israel as being God's elect in Matthew 24:34
- Both suggest another creation period in Genesis 1 that is in a "dateless past"
- The "new" Scofield however, takes things a step further in at least one area, see II Thessalonians 2:2, it actually changes the text of the verse itself from  "...the day of Christ is at hand" to "the day of the Lord is present". The original Scofield makes this suggestion in its notes (as does the new), but does not change the actual text of the verse.

 

Ryrie Study Bible

Along the same lines as Scofield, another popular "study" Bible that emphasizes a pre-tribulational and dispensational teaching in its various footnotes and references. 

Below is a photo of a Ryrie KJV "study" Bible, opened to II Thessalonians 2.  Note what is mentioned in the footnotes regarding verse 2, with the use of "better manuscripts".  Ryrie is likely referring to the same "better" text that Scofield did who favored the Greek text of men like Westcott & Hort.

My Thoughts

I reject the use of the word dispensation as an "ism" and the teaching that comes along with it. Just give me a King James Bible without man's words to tell me what I'm supposed to think it says.

- I have a hard time trusting a man which questions the King James Bible but yet wants to teach me what these Scriptures mean.
- Many people who rely on a Scofield KJV, read the notes as if they were Scripture and yet are not aware that Scofield himself doubted the accuracy of the King James Bible and its translators.

- God told Jeremiah that the day would come when He would bring a new covenant, as the children of Israel had failed to keep the former, see Jeremiah 31
- Yes, God spoke in different ways at different times, yet salvation has always been by faith alone, regardless of the law. Further, there is now neither Jew nor Greek, we are all one in Christ - to those that believe. See Galatians 3