Legalism

[twin1954]

The Pharisees had many oral traditions for how to keep the law that they traced the command for back to Moses. Many thought that it was impossible to keep the written law of Moses without knowing their oral traditions for how to keep it. For instance, they reason it was impossible to keep the command not to work on the Sabbath without knowing what counted as work, they gave a higher priority to their traditions, which Jesus criticized them for (Mark 7:6-9). In any case, they would never have considered teaching someone to keep the Sabbath without also teaching them their traditions, so that was all wrapped up in their concept of what it meant to keep the law of Moses.

So what was rejected was that Gentiles had to keep their many oral traditions and that they needed to keep the law of Moses in order to be saved, but they did not reject God's holy, righteous, and good law.

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.

This theme is consistent throughout the Bible where man's laws are overthrown while God's laws are upheld. It's almost bizarre to consider teaching people to obey God's commands to be going against His will.

You misuse the quote from Acts 5:29. Peter was answering the Jews who had commanded him and the Apostles to not speak the words of this life, vs. 20, and your ripping it out of its context to use it as a proof-text to support your pretext is not dealing honestly with the Scriptures.

Your whole premise is faulty because you still do not understand the fact that faith in Christ is enough. Moreover you still do not keep the law or obey His commands. You destroy the law by your whole concept.

I am done with this discussion.

 

[Soyeong]

You misuse the quote from Acts 5:29. Peter was answering the Jews who had commanded him and the Apostles to not speak the words of this life, vs. 20, and your ripping it out of its context to use it as a proof-text to support your pretext is not dealing honestly with the Scriptures.

Of course the context of Acts 5:29 is different than Acts 15. The point I was making was not that it was the same situation, but that it was an example of a theme that is present in the Bible. Over and over again, mans laws are ruled against while God's laws are upheld. No one has any authority to rule against God, so if you interpret anyone as ruling against God's laws, then you have not interpreted them correctly.

Your whole premise is faulty because you still do not understand the fact that faith in Christ is enough.

Hebrews 11 is full of people by faith demonstrated obedience to God. Our faith should likewise be demonstrated through obedience to God. The Bible says that children of God should have a righteous and holy conduct (1 John 3:4-10, 1 Peter 1:13-16), so our faith in Christ justifies us, but it should lead us to having that conduct.

Moreover you still do not keep the law or obey His commands. You destroy the law by your whole concept.

I've never claimed to be sinless, but that does not mean I don't practice obedience to His commands. I am still going through the process of sanctification of being made more like Christ in his obedience to God's commands.

I am done with this discussion.

It was nice talking with you.

 

[now faith]

Would the Gentiles as have to provide blood sacarfice?

God has written his law in our hearts,we no longer need to make blood sacarfice for sin.

What do we have under the new covenant that mankind did not have under the old?

We have in indwelling of the Holy Spirit,man is no longer behind the temple curtain.

The curtain was torn down making our way through Christ to come to the throne of grace