Is the Law of God bondage has taught by mainstream Christianity? Or freedom as taught in the bible?

[famohseven4b1g]

If the Law of God is perfect (Psalms 19:7), freedom (Psalms 119:44-45; James 1:25), truth (Psalms 119:142), and way of righteousness (Proverbs 2:20; Isaiah 51:7; Psalms 119:142; Deuteronomy 4:8; 2 Peter 2:21; 2 Timothy 3:16)...

Then why does mainstream Christianity teach that all this has changed (Malachi 3:6), and that Way of God ( Psalms 119:1; Proverbs 6:23, Mark 12:4) is no longer the way?

How long is forever (Leviticus 16:31; 1 Chronicles 16:15; Psalms 119:160; Isaiah 40:8)

If Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1)...

Has God changed (Malachi 3:6)?

And is what was sin (1 John 3:4) changed, and is no longer sin?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin hat...

Thread move from Formal Debate

Mark
CF Admin

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Is the Law of God bondage has taught by mainstream Christianity? Or freedom as taught in the bible?

Beware the law "yoke" of Judaism!! Flee it like the plague and be thankful we don't have to offer up sacrifices at a temple like the Jews are supposed to.

http://www.bible.ca/pre-destruction70AD-george-holford-1805AD.htm
The Destruction of Jerusalem

Deuteronomy 28:48
Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which YAHWEH shall send against thee, in hunger and in thirst and in nakedness and in want of all things:
and He shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee. [Acts 15:10/Reve 6:5]

Acts 15:10
Now then why are ye trying the God, to put a Yoke/zugon <2218> upon the Neck of the Disciples, which neither the fathers of us neither are we are able to bear? [Deut 28:48/Reve 6:5

Galatians 5:1 To-the freedom then the Christ of us did make free,stead-fast.
And not again a Yoke/zugw <2218> of servitude be ye having;

Reve 6:5
And when it up-opens the third seal , I hear of the third living one saying: "Be you coming"! And I am looking and I see and Behold! A black horse and the One-sitting-down upon it having a Yoke/zugon <2218> in the hand of him. [Deut 28:18/Acts 15:10]


.

 

[BobRyan]

If the Law of God is perfect (Psalms 19:7), freedom (Psalms 119:44-45; James 1:25), truth (Psalms 119:142), and way of righteousness (Proverbs 2:20; Isaiah 51:7; Psalms 119:142; Deuteronomy 4:8; 2 Peter 2:21; 2 Timothy 3:16)...

Then why does mainstream Christianity teach that all this has changed (Malachi 3:6), and that Way of God ( Psalms 119:1; Proverbs 6:23, Mark 12:4) is no longer the way?

How long is forever (Leviticus 16:31; 1 Chronicles 16:15; Psalms 119:160; Isaiah 40:8)

If Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1)...

Has God changed (Malachi 3:6)?

And is what was sin (1 John 3:4) changed, and is no longer sin?

"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31
"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 (moral law vs ceremonial law discussed there)
"saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

For many Christians - Christ's perspective is "instructive" as we see it here:

6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

 

[BobRyan]

As for what some denominations say about this --

Westminster Confession of Faith
Feb 13, 2015 #4

D.L. Moody
Feb 13, 2015 #6

 

[Soyeong]

Is the Law of God bondage has taught by mainstream Christianity? Or freedom as taught in the bible?

Beware the law "yoke" of Judaism!! Flee it like the plague and be thankful we don't have to offer up sacrifices at a temple like the Jews are supposed to.

http://www.bible.ca/pre-destruction70AD-george-holford-1805AD.htm
The Destruction of Jerusalem

Deuteronomy 28:48
Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which YAHWEH shall send against thee, in hunger and in thirst and in nakedness and in want of all things:
and He shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee. [Acts 15:10/Reve 6:5]

Acts 15:10
Now then why are ye trying the God, to put a Yoke/zugon <2218> upon the Neck of the Disciples, which neither the fathers of us neither are we are able to bear? [Deut 28:48/Reve 6:5

Galatians 5:1 To-the freedom then the Christ of us did make free,stead-fast.
And not again a Yoke/zugw <2218> of servitude be ye having;

Reve 6:5
And when it up-opens the third seal , I hear of the third living one saying: "Be you coming"! And I am looking and I see and Behold! A black horse and the One-sitting-down upon it having a Yoke/zugon <2218> in the hand of him. [Deut 28:18/Acts 15:10]


.

A "yoke" was a term that meant to be in service to something, and the verses you quoted are not all talking about being service to the same thing, so you're ripping them out of context. When it refers a rabbi's yoke it means to come in service to them and under their instruction for how to obey the law. So when Jesus said that his yoke was easy and his burden was light, he was saying that his instructions for obeying the law were easy, but when Jesus said the Pharisees tied up heavy burdens, he was saying that their instructions for how to obey the law were difficult. Likewise, in Acts 15, Peter was saying that their instructions for how to keep the law were difficult. Paul said that he was a bondservant of Christ and that that we are set free from slavery to sin to become slaves of obedience leading to righteousness, and slaves of righteousness, leading to sanctification. Sin is defined as breaking the law and righteousness in in accordance with the law, so we have been set free from sin so that we can be free to obey the law. The issue is not about whether or not we are in service to something, but about what we are in service to.

 

[Soyeong]

"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 (moral law vs ceremonial law discussed there)

I don't see anything there that makes a distinction between moral or ceremonial law.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't see anything there that makes a distinction between moral or ceremonial law.

the text is actually contrasting circumcision with the moral law of God.

the same contrast is seen in the groups listed in my signature line.

 

[Soyeong]

the text is actually contrasting circumcision with the moral law of God.

the same contrast is seen in the groups listed in my signature line.

Again, I see nothing in the text that suggests that contrast.

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68219884, member: 235244"]the text is actually contrasting circumcision with the moral law of God.

the same contrast is seen in the groups listed in my signature line.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. (NASB)

Again, I see nothing in the text that suggests that contrast.

ok .. well we differ on that point - but that is ok.

 

[Soyeong]

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. (NASB)

Romans 2:25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.

Romans 3:31 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?2 Much in every way!

Paul directly said that circumcision has value, but he saw its value as being dependant on obedience to the law. In other words, if someone practices lawlessness, then their circumcision is of no value, but if they obey the law, then their circumcision has value much in every way. I again see nothing that indicates that he was only talking about obeying a subset of laws. Granting for the sake of the argument that some of God's laws don't qualify as moral laws, our faith upholds all of them, not just the moral ones.

 

[BobRyan]

All laws based on an earthly priesthood (Heb 7) and animal sacrifices (Heb 10) were ended at the cross "He takes away the first to establish the second" Heb 10.

In 1Cor 7 Paul is addressing the issue of whether gentile Christians need to think about becoming Jews in order to fuflill/comply with/ the commandments of God.

18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

Paul's point is that obedience to the Commandments of God has nothing to do with circumcision and that those who are gentiles should not consider it at all as though this were something God had commanded them to do.

 

[Soyeong]

All laws based on an earthly priesthood (Heb 7) and animal sacrifices (Heb 10) were ended at the cross "He takes away the first to establish the second" Heb 10.

Agreed, we are under a new priesthood, but that doesn't mean laws that are not in regard to the priesthood no longer apply.

In 1Cor 7 Paul is addressing the issue of whether gentile Christians need to think about becoming Jews in order to fuflill/comply with/ the commandments of God.

18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

Paul's point is that obedience to the Commandments of God has nothing to do with circumcision and that those who are gentiles should not consider it at all as though this were something God had commanded them to do.

The law never commanded all Gentiles to become circumcised and become Jewish proselytes, so saying Gentiles don't have to do that has nothing to do with whether Gentiles are required to obey God. Many Jews considered Gentiles who had not been circumcised, become a Jewish proselyte, and obeyed the law according to their traditions to not be full covenant members, so they saw their circumcision as giving them a higher status. Paul would have none of that, so he is saying that circumcision doesn't give a higher status and uncircumcision doesn't give a lower status, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God. He does not say that what matters is keeping the [moral] commandments of God.

 

[BobRyan]

Agreed, we are under a new priesthood, but that doesn't mean laws that are not in regard to the priesthood no longer apply.

But laws that require that priesthood to perform the ritual are ended because as Heb 7 states that priesthood ended.

As Heb 8:1-6 "the main point is that we have a High Priest at the right hand of the Father.. if He were on earth He would not be a priest at all"

The law never commanded all Gentiles to become circumcised and become Jewish proselytes, so saying Gentiles don't have to do that has nothing to do with whether Gentiles are required to obey God. Many Jews considered Gentiles who had not been circumcised, become a Jewish proselyte, and obeyed the law according to their traditions to not be full covenant members, so they saw their circumcision as giving them a higher status.

agreed.

Paul would have none of that, so he is saying that circumcision doesn't give a higher status and uncircumcision doesn't give a lower status, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God.

Then either he does not consider circumcision to be part of the "Commandments of God" or ...?

He does not say for example "Honoring your parents or dishonoring your parents is of no importance but what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" -- because that would be self-conflicted.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The "what matters" texts go in an interesting pattern indicating a balance, for example:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 5:6)

The audience is important, to the immature corinthians who had rampant sexual immorality issues and a humanist sense of sympathy towards sin, what mattered was "the commandments" because the law is not for the righteous but transgressors. But to the Galatians who were not transgressors, what mattered was the christian message of Faith expressing itself through love. context seems to be key here.

 

[Soyeong]

Then either he does not consider circumcision to be part of the "Commandments of God" or ...?

He does not say for example "Honoring your parents or dishonoring your parents is of no importance but what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" -- because that would be self-conflicted.

He wasn't saying that the command to become circumcised was unimportant, but that being circumcised was not important if the weren't obedient to God. Again, some Jews were considering themselves to have a higher status because of their circumcision, so Paul was taking them down a peg.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you agree with me that these are very different statements?

Statement 1.
1 Cor 7
18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

Statement 2.
"Honoring your parents or dishonoring your parents is nothing ( of no importance) but what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" --

 

[Soyeong]

Do you agree with me that these are very different statements?

Yes. Circumcision was signifying something significant beyond the command, while honoring your parents is not.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes. Circumcision was signifying something significant beyond the command, while honoring your parents is not.

Then how is it that "Circumcision is nothing" and that "uncircumcision is nothing"??

 

[Soyeong]

Then how is it that "Circumcision is nothing" and that "uncircumcision is nothing"??

Some Jews thought that their circumcision gave them a higher status and Gentile's uncircumcision a lower status, so Paul was saying that that there was no status change, what mattered is obedience to God's commands.