Ten Commandments still valid so says Bible and pro-Sunday Scholars

[ToBeLoved]

Clearly you are enthusiastic about this topic and I welcome that.

In addition you have free will and can choose to ignore the simple questions asked, the Bible texts that you claim to negate etc.

BUT I prefer the 'both-and' solution AND refuting/negating NO Bible text at all!

"Give me the Bible AND the words IN the Bible"

I have given you verses from the Bible and the Chapter and verse.

Did you miss that?

What I brought to your attention is how you were using the 'before' Jesus Christ and the New Covenant to make your point, but not following through to the next three verses that show what Christ brought with the New Covenant.

Selectively pulling scripture is seductive, but not within context. It is important to read the full chapter including the words following the pieces that you pull out to get the full understanding of the teaching.

 

[BobRyan]

lol.

The new birth is not before Christ. .

That is a key flaw in the doctrine you have adopted - please read the teaching of Christ in John 3 where Christ said the teaching on the New Birth is for all OT scholars to be well informed about.

 

[BobRyan]

This is another key that you have missed so far.



Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe....
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Adding vs 31 allows you to avoid the error you make by your isolation of vs 21-23 alone.

Reading verses 21 -23 negate your verses.

This is your first indicator that your speculation is in error. There is 'no such thing as negating verses' in sola scriptura Bible study. Once you get into the business of refuting Bible texts - you are in the wrong business.

Verses 19-20 show what is UNDER the Law -- it does not say 'what was', you simply made that up.

In Vs 19-20 the entire world is still condemned as lost sinners - to this very day. And that only changes for those who choose to accept Christ - and are born again. Vs 21-23.

AND For those who ARE born again under Vs 21-23 we have that SAME vs 19-20 LAW in vs 31 "ESTABLISHED".
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Verses 21-23 show what is UNDER Christ in the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33. True in BOTH OT and NT.

You are using the verses incompletely, and out of context. as I have shown.

Romans 3 shows what it is to be under the "Obey and Live" Old Covenant, and then it shows the "after" context of the New Covenant concluding with Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Nothing in the text says "before Jesus was born" or "Before Jesus died on the cross" .

Rather the text states that STILL to this very day "ALL have sinned AND come short of the glory of God".
STILL to this very day "SIN is TRANSGRESSION of the LAW" 1 John 3:4.

This is NEW TESTAMENT doctrine.

STILL to this very day "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:l19

What you are MISSING is that Jesus death for the forgiveness of sins only CHANGES things for the one that accepts the Gospel - the lost sinner REMAINS condemned under the "obey and live" conditions of the STILL valid Old Covenant.

How did you miss that brother?

I have given you verses from the Bible and the Chapter and verse.

Did you miss that?

Your "solution" requires ignoring the verses that do not fit with your bias - as pointed out above.

You ignore the correcting "details" in the texts that do not fit your bias and simply repeat the already disproven claim - as shown above.

What I brought to your attention is how you were using the 'before' Jesus Christ and the New Covenant to make your point, but not following through to the next three verses that show what Christ brought with the New Covenant.

And then you were shown just where the texts you are leaving out - corrected your mistake.
Selectively pulling scripture is seductive, but not within context. It is important to read the full chapter including the words following the pieces that you pull out to get the full understanding of the teaching.

So then ...

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe....
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Adding vs 31 allows you to avoid the error ...

 

[BobRyan]

What I brought to your attention is how you were using the 'before' Jesus Christ and the New Covenant to make your point, but not following through to the next three verses that show what Christ brought with the New Covenant.
.

And you were then shown this -

Now then reading it all together - and in unison.

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe....
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Adding vs 31 allows you to avoid the error you make by your isolation of vs 21 alone.

Verses 19-20 show what is UNDER the Law -- it does not say 'what was', you simply made that up.

In Vs 19-20 the entire world is still condemned as lost sinners - to this very day. And that only changes for those who choose to accept Christ - and are born again. Vs 21-23.

AND For those who ARE born again under Vs 21-23 we have that SAME vs 19-20 LAW in vs 31 "ESTABLISHED".
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Verses 21-23 show what is UNDER Christ in the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33. True in BOTH OT and NT.

You are using the verses incompletely, and out of context. as I have shown.

Romans 3 shows what it is to be under the "Obey and Live" Old Covenant, and then it shows the "after" context of the New Covenant concluding with Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Nothing in the text says "before Jesus was born" or "Before Jesus died on the cross" .

Rather the text states that STILL to this very day "ALL have sinned AND come short of the glory of God".
STILL to this very day "SIN is TRANSGRESSION of the LAW" 1 John 3:4.

This is NEW TESTAMENT doctrine.

STILL to this very day "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:l19

What you are MISSING is that Jesus death for the forgiveness of sins only CHANGES things for the one that accepts the Gospel - the lost sinner REMAINS condemned under the "obey and live" conditions of the STILL valid Old Covenant.

How did you miss that brother?

Your "solution" requires ignoring the verses that do not fit with your bias - as pointed out above.

You ignore the correcting "details" in the texts that do not fit your bias and simply repeat the already disproven claim - as shown above. .

To which you appear to have no answer.

But there "IS" an answer - accept the text in its larger in-context form then you don't have to avoid vs 19-20 saying that it is still the case that the LAW of God condemns the wicked world and you don't have to avoid Rom 3:31.

 

[BobRyan]

The POV you are presenting appears to "require" that you avoid these easy questions --
Today at 11:16 AM #675

Albion is arguing in favor of promoting sunday-worship but his solution does not require that he fall on his sword impaled on Romans 3:31 or John 3 or Rom 2:19-23 where all of it is present tense and indicates that the lost world today are guilty of sin, only those who accept Christ are freed from that guilt.

His solution like D.L. Moody's, and R.C. Sproul's, and C.H. Spurgeon's, and the 'Westminster Confession of Faith" etc - does not get stuck in Romans 3 because he is free to admit that the Ten Commandments of Ex 20 are still binding on the saints. Still define sin and that our faith "ESTABLISHES the LAW" that condemns all the world.

Jesus did not do away with the Commandments, even while he freed us from the consequences of failing to keep them 100% of the time. That's an important distinction.

But on the other hand, moving to Sunday worship is explicitly permitted, according to the New Testament
...
so it's not that the Christian churches are saying that keeping holy the Sabbath is of no importance anymore.

You have opposed accepting the Bible texts I keep pointing out to you "as if" to accept them would mean that you would have to obey God's Word on the subject of the Sabbath.

But Albion has pointed out for you that there is another way out. One that does not get impaled so frequently on the NT texts. IT has other problems to be sure - but they are more focused ones whereas war against God's Commandments will get you in trouble in almost every chapter of the Bible, including Romans 2 and Romans 3.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That is a key flaw in the doctrine you have adopted - please read the teaching of Christ in John 3 where Christ said the teaching on the New Birth is for all OT scholars to be well informed about.

the Book of John is not in the Old Testament.

John is the New Testament.

You really need to know your Bible better if we are going to discuss this.

 

[ToBeLoved]

And you were then shown this -



To which you appear to have no answer.

But there "IS" an answer - accept the text in its larger in-context form then you don't have to avoid vs 19-20 saying that it is still the case that the LAW of God condemns the wicked world and you don't have to avoid Rom 3:31.

You skipped 10 verses.

You do not see the difference between quoting Romans 3:19-20, skipping verses 21-30 and then jumping to verse 31?

Way to cherry pick your verses.

It needs to be ALL read together to be in context.

I'm not letting you cherry pick which verses you pull out of context to try and make a false point.

List out the entire passage from Romans 3:19-31 and we can talk.

 

[ToBeLoved]

And you were then shown this -
To which you appear to have no answer.

But there "IS" an answer - accept the text in its larger in-context form then you don't have to avoid vs 19-20 saying that it is still the case that the LAW of God condemns the wicked world and you don't have to avoid Rom 3:31.

You should be ashamed cherry picking scripture to present a falseness.

I think not presenting the truth is a sin under the 10 Commandments my Old Testament brother.

 

[BobRyan]

What I brought to your attention is how you were using the 'before' Jesus Christ and the New Covenant to make your point, but not following through to the next three verses that show what Christ brought with the New Covenant.
.

And you were then shown this -

Now then reading it all together - and in unison.

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe....
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Adding vs 31 allows you to avoid the error you make by your isolation of vs 21 alone.

Verses 19-20 show what is UNDER the Law -- it does not say 'what was', you simply made that up.

In Vs 19-20 the entire world is still condemned as lost sinners - to this very day. And that only changes for those who choose to accept Christ - and are born again. Vs 21-23.

AND For those who ARE born again under Vs 21-23 we have that SAME vs 19-20 LAW in vs 31 "ESTABLISHED".
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Verses 21-23 show what is UNDER Christ in the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33. True in BOTH OT and NT.

You are using the verses incompletely, and out of context. as I have shown.

Romans 3 shows what it is to be under the "Obey and Live" Old Covenant, and then it shows the "after" context of the New Covenant concluding with Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Nothing in the text says "before Jesus was born" or "Before Jesus died on the cross" .

Rather the text states that STILL to this very day "ALL have sinned AND come short of the glory of God".
STILL to this very day "SIN is TRANSGRESSION of the LAW" 1 John 3:4.

This is NEW TESTAMENT doctrine.

STILL to this very day "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:l19

What you are MISSING is that Jesus death for the forgiveness of sins only CHANGES things for the one that accepts the Gospel - the lost sinner REMAINS condemned under the "obey and live" conditions of the STILL valid Old Covenant.

How did you miss that brother?

Your "solution" requires ignoring the verses that do not fit with your bias - as pointed out above.

You ignore the correcting "details" in the texts that do not fit your bias and simply repeat the already disproven claim - as shown above. .

To which you appear to have no answer.

But there "IS" an answer - accept the text in its larger in-context form then you don't have to avoid vs 19-20 saying that it is still the case that the LAW of God condemns the wicked world and you don't have to avoid Rom 3:31.

You should be ashamed

It is not logical to argue ad hominem "shame" when the Bible texts you are ignoring in Rom 3:31 are pointed out to you and when it is pointed out to you that Rom 3:19-20 are still true EVEN according to your own fellow pro-sunday scholars.

Rather you should be thanking me for pointing to the details you are avoiding so far.

I think not presenting the truth is a sin

Hence my suggestion to you above.

These are NT texts you simply cannot afford to ignore.

 

[BobRyan]

What I brought to your attention is how you were using the 'before' Jesus Christ and the New Covenant to make your point, but not following through to the next three verses that show what Christ brought with the New Covenant.
.

And you were then shown this -
======================

Now then reading it all together - and in unison.

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe....
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Adding vs 31 allows you to avoid the error you make by your isolation of vs 21 alone.

Verses 19-20 show what is UNDER the Law -- it does not say 'what was', you simply made that up.

In Vs 19-20 the entire world is still condemned as lost sinners - to this very day. And that only changes for those who choose to accept Christ - and are born again. Vs 21-23.

AND For those who ARE born again under Vs 21-23 we have that SAME vs 19-20 LAW in vs 31 "ESTABLISHED".
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Verses 21-23 show what is UNDER Christ in the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33. True in BOTH OT and NT.

You are using the verses incompletely, and out of context. as I have shown.

Romans 3 shows what it is to be under the "Obey and Live" Old Covenant, and then it shows the "after" context of the New Covenant concluding with Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Nothing in the text says "before Jesus was born" or "Before Jesus died on the cross" .

Rather the text states that STILL to this very day "ALL have sinned AND come short of the glory of God".
STILL to this very day "SIN is TRANSGRESSION of the LAW" 1 John 3:4.

This is NEW TESTAMENT doctrine.

STILL to this very day "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:l19

What you are MISSING is that Jesus death for the forgiveness of sins only CHANGES things for the one that accepts the Gospel - the lost sinner REMAINS condemned under the "obey and live" conditions of the STILL valid Old Covenant.

How did you miss that brother?

Your "solution" requires ignoring the verses that do not fit with your bias - as pointed out above.

You ignore the correcting "details" in the texts that do not fit your bias and simply repeat the already disproven claim - as shown above.

==========================================

To which you appear to have no answer.

But there "IS" an answer - accept the text in its larger in-context form then you don't have to avoid vs 19-20 saying that it is still the case that the LAW of God condemns the wicked world and you don't have to avoid Rom 3:31.

You skipped 10 verses.
You do not see the difference between quoting Romans 3:19-20, skipping verses 21-30 and then jumping to verse 31?

31 -- which you are careful never to read, quote, speak to ... is Paul's conclusion to further demonstrate how it is that Rom 3:19-23 fit so well together as current reality for the New Testament.

If you "need to ignore" vs 31 until vs 19-31 is quoted. That is coming up.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The POV you are presenting appears to "require" that you avoid these easy questions --
Today at 11:16 AM #675

Albion is arguing in favor of promoting sunday-worship but his solution does not require that he fall on his sword impaled on Romans 3:31 or John 3 or Rom 2:19-23 where all of it is present tense and indicates that the lost world today are guilty of sin, only those who accept Christ are freed from that guilt.

His solution like D.L. Moody's, and R.C. Sproul's, and C.H. Spurgeon's, and the 'Westminster Confession of Faith" etc - does not get stuck in Romans 3 because he is free to admit that the Ten Commandments of Ex 20 are still binding on the saints. Still define sin and that our faith "ESTABLISHES the LAW" that condemns all the world.

You have opposed accepting the Bible texts I keep pointing out to you "as if" to accept them would mean that you would have to obey God's Word on the subject of the Sabbath.

But Albion has pointed out for you that there is another way out. One that does not get impaled so frequently on the NT texts. IT has other problems to be sure - but they are more focused ones whereas war against God's Commandments will get you in trouble in almost every chapter of the Bible, including Romans 2 and Romans 3.

Still waiting for an actual answer to the 3 Bible questions mentioned....

No amount of calling me names will make those bible texts vanish.

 

[BobRyan]

Meanwhile - since you refuse to even look at Rom 3:31 until Romans 3:19-31 are quoted...

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.


Recall that in the NEW TESTAMENT - "SIN IS TRANSGRESSION of the LAW" 1 John 3:4

Romans 3
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


Recall that in the NEW TESTAMENT - "SIN IS TRANSGRESSION of the LAW" 1 John 3:4

Romans 3
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation (atoning Sacrifice) in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Is it any wonder then that even your own fellow pro-sunday poster on this thread ... posts this rather than trying to refute Romans 3??

Jesus did not do away with the Commandments, even while he freed us from the consequences of failing to keep them 100% of the time. That's an important distinction.

But on the other hand, moving to Sunday worship is explicitly permitted, according to the New Testament
...
so it's not that the Christian churches are saying that keeping holy the Sabbath is of no importance anymore.

Bottom line - you cannot blame these inconvenient details in Romans 3 on "me" or on 'just those that keep God's Bible Sabbath' - as the example with Albion points out for us.

The list is closer to this when it comes to those who refuse to reject the Bible teaching on God's TEN Commandments being applicable "still" to the saints.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)

 

[ToBeLoved]

And you were then shown this -
======================

Now then reading it all together - and in unison.

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe....
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Adding vs 31 allows you to avoid the error you make by your isolation of vs 21 alone.

Verses 19-20 show what is UNDER the Law -- it does not say 'what was', you simply made that up.

In Vs 19-20 the entire world is still condemned as lost sinners - to this very day. And that only changes for those who choose to accept Christ - and are born again. Vs 21-23.

AND For those who ARE born again under Vs 21-23 we have that SAME vs 19-20 LAW in vs 31 "ESTABLISHED".
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Verses 21-23 show what is UNDER Christ in the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33. True in BOTH OT and NT.

You are using the verses incompletely, and out of context. as I have shown.

Romans 3 shows what it is to be under the "Obey and Live" Old Covenant, and then it shows the "after" context of the New Covenant concluding with Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Nothing in the text says "before Jesus was born" or "Before Jesus died on the cross" .

Rather the text states that STILL to this very day "ALL have sinned AND come short of the glory of God".
STILL to this very day "SIN is TRANSGRESSION of the LAW" 1 John 3:4.

This is NEW TESTAMENT doctrine.

STILL to this very day "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:l19

What you are MISSING is that Jesus death for the forgiveness of sins only CHANGES things for the one that accepts the Gospel - the lost sinner REMAINS condemned under the "obey and live" conditions of the STILL valid Old Covenant.

How did you miss that brother?

Your "solution" requires ignoring the verses that do not fit with your bias - as pointed out above.

You ignore the correcting "details" in the texts that do not fit your bias and simply repeat the already disproven claim - as shown above.

==========================================

To which you appear to have no answer.

But there "IS" an answer - accept the text in its larger in-context form then you don't have to avoid vs 19-20 saying that it is still the case that the LAW of God condemns the wicked world and you don't have to avoid Rom 3:31.



31 -- which you are careful never to read, quote, speak to ... is Paul's conclusion to further demonstrate how it is that Rom 3:19-23 fit so well together as current reality for the New Testament.

If you "need to ignore" vs 31 until vs 19-31 is quoted. That is coming up.

in Christ,

Bob

You really do not make sense.

I do not have to follow along with your cherry-picking verses. Now I see why no one is talking with you. You just keep telling me the same thing that you cut and paste.

I'm sorry brother, but there are several interesting conversations elsewhere that actually do not keep repeating themselves.

I know this may be how you 'win' a conversation in your mind, by driving the other person away after you keep copy and pasting the same thing. It is very sad, but I hope God shows you the error of your ways. Be blessed.

 

[BobRyan]

You really do not make sense. .

Try reading this slowly -- then if you have an actual question or comment on an actual detail in the text - feel free to post one.

================================================================

What I brought to your attention is how you were using the 'before' Jesus Christ and the New Covenant to make your point, but not following through to the next three verses that show what Christ brought with the New Covenant.
.

And you were then shown this -
======================

Now then reading it all together - and in unison.

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe....
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Adding vs 31 allows you to avoid the error you make by your isolation of vs 21 alone.

Verses 19-20 show what is UNDER the Law -- it does not say 'what was', you simply made that up.

In Vs 19-20 the entire world is still condemned as lost sinners - to this very day. And that only changes for those who choose to accept Christ - and are born again. Vs 21-23.

AND For those who ARE born again under Vs 21-23 we have that SAME vs 19-20 LAW in vs 31 "ESTABLISHED".
Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Verses 21-23 show what is UNDER Christ in the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33. True in BOTH OT and NT.

You are using the verses incompletely, and out of context. as I have shown.

Romans 3 shows what it is to be under the "Obey and Live" Old Covenant, and then it shows the "after" context of the New Covenant concluding with Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! in fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Nothing in the text says "before Jesus was born" or "Before Jesus died on the cross" .

Rather the text states that STILL to this very day "ALL have sinned AND come short of the glory of God".
STILL to this very day "SIN is TRANSGRESSION of the LAW" 1 John 3:4.

This is NEW TESTAMENT doctrine.

STILL to this very day "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:l19

What you are MISSING is that Jesus death for the forgiveness of sins only CHANGES things for the one that accepts the Gospel - the lost sinner REMAINS condemned under the "obey and live" conditions of the STILL valid Old Covenant.

How did you miss that brother?

Your "solution" requires ignoring the verses that do not fit with your bias - as pointed out above.

You ignore the correcting "details" in the texts that do not fit your bias and simply repeat the already disproven claim - as shown above.

==========================================

To which you appear to have no answer.

But there "IS" an answer - accept the text in its larger in-context form then you don't have to avoid vs 19-20 saying that it is still the case that the LAW of God condemns the wicked world and you don't have to avoid Rom 3:31.

You skipped 10 verses.
You do not see the difference between quoting Romans 3:19-20, skipping verses 21-30 and then jumping to verse 31?

31 -- which you are careful never to read, quote, speak to ... is Paul's conclusion to further demonstrate how it is that Rom 3:19-23 fit so well together as current reality for the New Testament.

If you "need to ignore" vs 31 until vs 19-31 is quoted. That is coming up.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The POV you are presenting appears to "require" that you avoid these easy questions --
Today at 11:16 AM #675

Albion is arguing in favor of promoting sunday-worship but his solution does not require that he fall on his sword impaled on Romans 3:31 or John 3 or Rom 2:19-23 where all of it is present tense and indicates that the lost world today are guilty of sin, only those who accept Christ are freed from that guilt.

His solution like D.L. Moody's, and R.C. Sproul's, and C.H. Spurgeon's, and the 'Westminster Confession of Faith" etc - does not get stuck in Romans 3 because he is free to admit that the Ten Commandments of Ex 20 are still binding on the saints. Still define sin and that our faith "ESTABLISHES the LAW" that condemns all the world.

You have opposed accepting the Bible texts I keep pointing out to you "as if" to accept them would mean that you would have to obey God's Word on the subject of the Sabbath.

But Albion has pointed out for you that there is another way out. One that does not get impaled so frequently on the NT texts. IT has other problems to be sure - but they are more focused ones whereas war against God's Commandments will get you in trouble in almost every chapter of the Bible, including Romans 2 and Romans 3.

Still waiting for an actual answer to the 3 super-easy Bible questions mentioned in that post....

No amount of calling me names will make those bible texts vanish.

I'm sorry brother, but there are several interesting conversations elsewhere .

wow - those three easy questions were apprently just 'too much' for those whose primary solution is "Bible avoidance".

 

[BobRyan]

31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Is it any wonder then that even your own fellow pro-sunday poster on this thread ... posts this rather than trying to refute Romans 3??

Jesus did not do away with the Commandments, even while he freed us from the consequences of failing to keep them 100% of the time. That's an important distinction.

But on the other hand, moving to Sunday worship is explicitly permitted, according to the New Testament
...
so it's not that the Christian churches are saying that keeping holy the Sabbath is of no importance anymore.

You just keep telling me the same thing that you cut and paste.

This new "leave the point you cannot answer" solution you are trying out is a good one.

Notice that in the time of the Protestant Reformation - this was one of the great ways to respond to the points that Luther raised.

This "Ten Commandments still apply to the saints" point is sooooo incredibly obvious EVEN to pro-Sunday scholarship that those "with me" on the point include --

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)

So then - not "Just the Bible and Albion" agreeing to the "still-valid" Ten Commandments for Christians.

 

[ToBeLoved]

31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Is it any wonder then that even your own fellow pro-sunday poster on this thread ... posts this rather than trying to refute Romans 3??





This new "leave the point you cannot answer" solution you are trying out is a good one.

Notice that in the time of the Protestant Reformation - this was one of the great ways to respond to the points that Luther raised.

This "Ten Commandments still apply to the saints" point is sooooo incredibly obvious EVEN to pro-Sunday scholarship that those "with me" on the point include --

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)

So then - not "Just the Bible and Albion" agreeing to the "still-valid" Ten Commandments for Christians.

Sorry. It's just that you keep repeating yourself and I have other things to do.

I'll let you copy and paste with someone who wants to retread your posts.

You think what you want though. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry. It's just that you keep repeating yourself .

Some Bible texts are "irrefutable" and yet some people insist on assailing/refuting/condemning certain Bible truths. Those same irrefutable texts surface each time that happens -- and people appear to never tire of going up against the Bible on those points over and over again.

It matters not to them that not only does the Bible refute their wild speculation - but even their own fellow pro-sunday Christians refute them.

And then they offer to "re-imagine reality" by blaming all their problems -- on me. That simply does not work in a world that is no longer in the dark ages... we can all read. We can all see what the Bible is saying. We can all see that it is not just the Bible Sabbath keeping Christians that "notice" the flaws in the attacks against God's TEN Commandments - but even your own pro-sunday scholars come out against those attacks.

Then when it reduces down to a few simple questions... well flee those too.

And then when it reduces down to even one verse at the end of Romans 3 -- well then flee that as well.

Those solutions may fully satisfy "some".

Not all will go for it among the objective unbiased readers of these pages.

 

[FredVB]

How about boldly showing us any history that God ever anyplace asked anyone to observe any day. Even if you could that would not mean that Sabbath is a relevant part of the Christian's life.

And so we go around, when I make good biblical points, they won't be argued, and one not agreeing will use under the law as an argument, though I clarify every other post on this subject that with salvation, I am not under the law, and never suggested it.
It is moral when you tell others what to do regarding it. Isaiah 56:6-8

6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Yahweh, to serve him, and to love the name of the Yahweh, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
8 The Lord Yahweh which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

Picking verses that have nothing to do with the subject doesn't make the Sabbath a moral commandment. Sabbath like all of the days God gave only to Israel were ritual. They had no moral bearing on how we treat God or our fellow man. They were made to remember.

I was asked something for that to which I gave that response. I don't say anything for making it a moral matter for others. I answer to it as I see for what call there is with it. And that passage is apparently yet to happen, for gentiles, who are not people of Israel. You might say it did happen, but I know nothing of such happening and what is yet to happen on God's mountain is still coming. So God still has call to this, which was made for man. And it is a moral matter where any will tell others what they shouldn't with it.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Jesus did not do away with the Commandments, even while he freed us from the consequences of failing to keep them 100% of the time. That's an important distinction. But on the other hand, moving to Sunday worship is explicitly permitted, according to the New Testament, so it's not that the Christian churches are saying that keeping holy the Sabbath is of no importance anymore.

In fact, the fundamentalist mindset of the Seventh-day folks is rather funny, considering that the exact day of the week is ultra important to them, but considering how many times the calendar that they and the rest of us use has been changed, with days left out, leap years accounted for, and so on, that no one can say for sure that today is the same day as it was in antiquity anyway.

Not sure if someone else picked up on this but you are wrong, I'm afraid. When the calendar was changed to the Gregorian, the day did not change, only the date. The Jewish community has been keeping the seventh day for over 3500 years in different parts of the earth. It would be huge news if there was a Jewish community that challenged it.

One thing that satan has not been able to do was pervert the seven day cycle... he did try to during the French Revolution but that didn't catch on and was a sure indicator of who was behind that atheistic, debaucherous time of slaughter.