The ten commandments Old covenant, and the law "done away" and "abolished" as paul said

[bugkiller]

You didn't "reply" to anything I said. And I didn't "try" to quote James, I "did" quote James.

The law is righteous and good. Paul himself - your "poster child" for your argument - said that. He also said that the law did not bring death, but sin, acting through the law, brought death. (read my last post, which it doesn't seem like you read at all, for the chapter/verse on that).

I'm glad you bring up the "entire book of Galatians," as I carefully pointed out your Galatians fallacies using the surrounding text in Galatians. Galatians is, after all, more than just chapter 3.

The law is not made for a righteous man... there is none righteous, no not one.

And where do you keep repeating "the law is not of faith" from? Of course the law is not of faith... It's of God. Just as faith is of God. "For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any should boast."

You keep misunderstanding Paul. Righteousness does not come by the law, not because the law is not righteous or good, but because we are incapable of righteousness. Therefore, if we trust in our works in the law for righteousness, we will fail. Because we are all born in sin.

However, if we trust in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father and the only sacrifice with the power to take away sin, for righteousness, God will send the Holy Spirit and He will empower us to live in obedience to God rather than to sin.

The law does not bring death. Sin brings death through the law. Paul did not ever preach breaking the law of God or that the law was abolished. He fought the party of circumcision, because circumcision was a sign of the old covenant.

When you call God's law unjust and evil, and say that God's law brought death, you mock and vilify God. God's law is just. His statutes are just. His law is good, and all His commandments are righteous.

Jesus said Himself that He did not come to abolish the law (something you keep trying to work around but just can't get there). So if Jesus didn't abolish the law, who did? Certainly not Paul. He would make no such claim.

I would echo Jesus warning (again) here as well: "Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven..."

If the abover is true why don't you keep the law as its written?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I have not "run" from anything.

You are the one who is running - from the words of Jesus. You think that you can hide behind Paul, but if he were alive he would leave you no place to hide.

I also quoted Paul, who said in Romans 7 that the law is good and righteous, and the law did not bring death. Sin brought death, and the law exposed sin.

You continually confuse the law of God with the old covenant under the law. While Paul often says we are free from the law and from sin, he also says frequently that we are slaves to Christ. And you tell me that I am in error because I agree with the law of God, as Paul himself does.

If you need me to go through each one of your references and show you what they mean, I can certainly do that...

2 Corinthians 3: Paul makes it exceedingly clear what he is talking about in verse 6 where he says that we are ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit.

And from this premise he continues to talk about how the covenant of the letter of the law brings death, because there is nobody who can keep the entire law. The new covenant of the Spirit brings life, because by God's power we are becoming obedient children as we have been commanded.

And I'm still waiting to hear who abolished the law... Jesus didn't - He said so Himself. So who did? I've noticed you run from anyone who quotes Jesus to you (or anybody besides Paul, for that matter). As Peter said, there are those who take the writings of Paul that are hard to understand and twist them...

Perhaps you should study the covenant of the law and the new covenant. It might help you understand the difference between freedom from the covenant of the law and whether the law is abolished and done away with. (I don't think you'll much enjoy fighting Jesus on that one).

Just another note about Paul... Paul frequently says that we must not continue to live in SIN. But we know from John that sin is transgression of the law. Now I know you're not too fond of John, but the epistles of John are just as much the word of God as the epistles of Paul (who himself speaks to the righteousness and goodness of the law).

So again, Paul is talking about the covenant of the law passing away, because that covenant never had the power to save and was only pointing toward the new covenant. That is why the "law is good if one uses it lawfully."

I guess I should apologize for saying I'll hit on all your references... To envelop the entire book of Hebrews would take too long for this forum, but nowhere in Hebrews does Paul (or the author of Hebrews if it's not Paul) say that the law is abolished and done away with.

Just a hint - one of the first principles of exegesis is that if something in the text seems to clash with other doctrine in the Bible, you need to look at other teaching on the same doctrine to find the best interpretation of it.

Please explain Rom 7:6.

And no I'm not hiding behind Paul who you consider top be a false teacher.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I have not "run" from anything.

You are the one who is running - from the words of Jesus. You think that you can hide behind Paul, but if he were alive he would leave you no place to hide.

I also quoted Paul, who said in Romans 7 that the law is good and righteous, and the law did not bring death. Sin brought death, and the law exposed sin.

You continually confuse the law of God with the old covenant under the law. While Paul often says we are free from the law and from sin, he also says frequently that we are slaves to Christ. And you tell me that I am in error because I agree with the law of God, as Paul himself does.

If you need me to go through each one of your references and show you what they mean, I can certainly do that...

2 Corinthians 3: Paul makes it exceedingly clear what he is talking about in verse 6 where he says that we are ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit.

And from this premise he continues to talk about how the covenant of the letter of the law brings death, because there is nobody who can keep the entire law. The new covenant of the Spirit brings life, because by God's power we are becoming obedient children as we have been commanded.

And I'm still waiting to hear who abolished the law... Jesus didn't - He said so Himself. So who did? I've noticed you run from anyone who quotes Jesus to you (or anybody besides Paul, for that matter). As Peter said, there are those who take the writings of Paul that are hard to understand and twist them...

Perhaps you should study the covenant of the law and the new covenant. It might help you understand the difference between freedom from the covenant of the law and whether the law is abolished and done away with. (I don't think you'll much enjoy fighting Jesus on that one).

Just another note about Paul... Paul frequently says that we must not continue to live in SIN. But we know from John that sin is transgression of the law. Now I know you're not too fond of John, but the epistles of John are just as much the word of God as the epistles of Paul (who himself speaks to the righteousness and goodness of the law).

So again, Paul is talking about the covenant of the law passing away, because that covenant never had the power to save and was only pointing toward the new covenant. That is why the "law is good if one uses it lawfully."

I guess I should apologize for saying I'll hit on all your references... To envelop the entire book of Hebrews would take too long for this forum, but nowhere in Hebrews does Paul (or the author of Hebrews if it's not Paul) say that the law is abolished and done away with.

Just a hint - one of the first principles of exegesis is that if something in the text seems to clash with other doctrine in the Bible, you need to look at other teaching on the same doctrine to find the best interpretation of it.

Another hint is exegesis doesn't include your unbiblical beliefs based from other sources than the Bible.

bugkiller

 

[nomadictheist]

Please explain Rom 7:6.

And no I'm not hiding behind Paul who you consider top be a false teacher.

bugkiller

See prior posts. Already done.

And I don't consider Paul to be a false teacher. You are trying to hide behind Paul because you fail to understand that he's talking about the old covenant that required God's people to keep the law in order to obtain salvation.

That covenant was found to be faulty because there was never any possibility of success. That covenant has been replaced with the new covenant in which we serve God through the power of Jesus Christ, as obedient children and not as lawless sinners. We are released from the covenant of the law.

 

[nomadictheist]

Another hint is exegesis doesn't include your unbiblical beliefs based from other sources than the Bible.

bugkiller

Perhaps you would like to show my extra-biblical sources from my posts?

 

[bugkiller]

God loves His laws just as the earthly king loves his rules. They protect His children from law breakers, it's penalties acting as deterrents to those who would harm them when they are unrestrained and acting in unlawful ways. However, when a rule itself harms those it is supposed to protect, such as, for example, when orderly traffic and red lights comes in the way of a precious citizen of the king from reaching a hospital in time, the king sends outriders to force the traffic to pull over, suspends the lights and makes straight the path for the ambulance to reach its destination in a life saving manner. The law was made for man, not man for the law.

Similarly, when the Jews stopped Christ from healing on the Sabbath, He showed them their hypocrisy, since they rescued their cattle that had fallen into pits on the Sabbath and ruled it was right to save lives on the Sabbath. Even in orthodox quarters of modern Jerusalem, ambulances are allows to operate and doctors to work on the Sabbath. Jesus even used the precedent of David saving the lives of his men by letting them eat the shew bread.

Telling people to observe Sabbath is to tell them that God has not made available their rest from their own efforts to be saved, through works of the law, the rest available by hearing with faith, this salvation available because of the atoning of the cross, of which the sacrifices were a foreshadowing.

Galatians 3:1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

By doing this, people who insist on law observance are keeping the unsaved in the dark. Christ called it the blind trying to lead the blind.

Let's get this straight. Observing the law is saying the sacrificial death of Christ never happened.

No they're trying to steal our souls.


bugkiller

 

[nomadictheist]

If the abover is true why don't you keep the law as its written?

bugkiller

Which part of the law?

I've said many times that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial (and thus the levitical and purification rites) law. I do my best to obey all of God's commandments that were not specifically in what Jesus fulfilled (or declared to be no longer present, such as the eating of foods or the covenant sign of circumcision). I don't always succeed, because I'm not perfect, but when I fail I confess my sin to God and rely on the perfect sacrifice that was given as atonement for sin.

 

[bugkiller]

Perhaps you would like to show my extra-biblical sources from my posts?

Why? All I need is the Bible. When your ideas don't line up with the Bible they come from another source you revere as superior.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Which part of the law?

I've said many times that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial (and thus the levitical and purification rites) law. I do my best to obey all of God's commandments that were not specifically in what Jesus fulfilled (or declared to be no longer present, such as the eating of foods or the covenant sign of circumcision). I don't always succeed, because I'm not perfect, but when I fail I confess my sin to God and rely on the perfect sacrifice that was given as atonement for sin.

We can start with the 4th.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

See prior posts. Already done.

And I don't consider Paul to be a false teacher. You are trying to hide behind Paul because you fail to understand that he's talking about the old covenant that required God's people to keep the law in order to obtain salvation.

That covenant was found to be faulty because there was never any possibility of success. That covenant has been replaced with the new covenant in which we serve God through the power of Jesus Christ, as obedient children and not as lawless sinners. We are released from the covenant of the law.

hogwash

You clearly don't accept Rom 7:6.

Please direct me to any post you explained Rom 7:6.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68417716,]In Romans 7 Paul says that the LAW defines sin for "US" and in Gal 3 and Romans 3 - Paul says that the "US" in that case is "the entire world".

The condemnation of the LAW is the reference for Romans 7:6.

And as for Romans 6 --

Who is the "WE" in Romans 6? The context for Romans 7.
Did this get answered - on the way to Romans 7???


1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

The Bible says "sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4
Paul says "where there is no law neither is there sin" Romans 4.

And Paul says in Romans 3 and in Romans 7 -- the Law defines what sin is.[/QUOTE]Paul also says we are delivered from the law which you flatly refuse to accept as true amongst many other passages.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Yes he does say to keep the commandments, in the sermon on the mount Matthew 5:17-20. In fact, there is no evidence it is limited to the ten. IN FACT, according to Matthew 23, it even includes the ORAL torah.

Where on either?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I see that you avoided the question. Very telling.

How?

bugkiller

 

[LoveofTruth]

That covenant was found to be faulty because there was never any possibility of success. That covenant has been replaced with the new covenant in which we serve God through the power of Jesus Christ, as obedient children and not as lawless sinners. We are released from the covenant of the law.

and that covenant was connected to Moses and the ten commandments

Mk 7:9-10 For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother"

part of the ten commandments and this is also done away and abolished as we read

""7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart."2 Corinthians 3:7-14

even when reading Moses many are confused and blinded.

There is no way around the fact that the ten commandments written and engraved in STONES are done away and abolished for the believer. We walk and love in the law of the Spirit of life in Christ jesus not in the old letter. But a new and living way.


The Law of Moses is the law given at Horeb (10 commandments): Malachi 4:4 Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel.

Law of Moses included everything God commanded: 1 Kings 2:3

and

God gave the "Law of Moses" Ezra 7:6 "Ezra... a scribe skilled in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given"

The Ten commandments are the Old Covenant: Ex 34:27-28

The Old Covenant was abolished: Heb 8:13
and so were the ten commandments as 2 Cor 3 says.

So many cannot see 2 Cor 3 and Paul says even when they read the old Testament the veil is on the heart

 

[bugkiller]

Sheesh. The point is what is he being fearful about and what precisely is his sin?

You're doing nothing except trying to cause trouble.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Of course. We agree, my friend.

On what? All Christians are Jews? hogwash!!!!!!!

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

My intention is to lead you to the truth. Your "lead others astray" remark is flaming and you are lucky I haven't reported you.

OK then to believe a false teaching. What's the difference?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Excuse me? Jesus is the new High Priest and when the high priest changes there is a change in the law. Did you not understand my post?

If Jesus is this high priest, how can he be in compliance with the law?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue.

As I explained before (and can again if you like), being free from the law means being no longer bound by it to death. That doesn't mean that the law is no longer upheld as right and true.

Nor does it mean that we are required to follow the levitical law. That was a prescription for sacrifice, and since the only sacrifice that can truly save us has now been made to continue to offer sacrifices would be an affront to God.

Yes. What the law could not do (save anybody) Jesus did through His death and resurrection. This is talking about salvation. I have not once argued that the law is required for salvation. Only that the law is what is right, and therefore if we are truly being conformed into the image of God we will still be obedient to the law (not because it saves us, but because we are children being conformed into the image of the firstborn Son).

And you neglect in your "explanation" of the word "fail," also translated "perish" in some versions, that Jesus also says that "anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever does and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." The Kingdom of Heaven is something that exists after Jesus sacrifice, not before. Therefore, Jesus is here reaffirming that the law is still what is right and good under the new covenant, but the means of justification (once the levitical system and sacrifice) has changed.

And this is Jesus talking. I will believe Him over you any day.

What you fail to understand is the distinction between the moral law and the justification/cleanliness laws. The law prescribes the levitical order to facilitate the forgiveness of sins through sacrifice. But the law failed because nobody could fully live in accordance with the law, even with sacrifices and offerings. Also, the blood of animals was never enough to cover sins, but was instituted in order to point to the only sacrifice that truly could cover sins.

There are far too many Christians who use our freedom from the law - that is, our freedom from the death that comes from being bound by the law - to try to excuse living lives of greed, adultery, idolatry, covetousness, promiscuity, and other things forbidden by God. As Paul said, "it is for freedom that Christ set us free." Not to revel in the works of the flesh.

You call it "weak Christians," but it is in reality maturity that allows you to grasp that being freed from the law does not make the law evil or wrong. The law still shows us God's standards, and as His children we are being conformed to those standards. And teaching people that it's ok to break those standards now will, as Jesus said, result in being least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

If you argue a Christian is obligated to the law you require it for salvation.

bugkiller

 

[nomadictheist]

Mk 7:9-10 For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother"

Why don't you quote the rest of it? This is a frequent occurrence with your "scripture references." They were not rebuked for keeping the commandment, but rather for failing to keep it and adhering rather to their own tradition:

"For Moses said,‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God) —12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

According to the Bible, it was not just the ten commandments written on the stone tablets, but the entirety of the law of the old covenant - to include the atonement rituals. That is why the old covenant is called the "ministration of death." Because it could never save and could only point to the One who could save.

But I guess I'll believe you and start neglecting all the commandments of God, since they're now null and void and I can decide for myself what serving God means. After all, since His Spirit dwells in us, we can conveniently discard anything God's law says about it, because that's all null and void.

The pharisees were condemned in Mark for "making void the word of God by tradition." But I guess it's ok to do that today.