Gal 4 "under the Law" vs "under Grace" in Romans 6 and not sinning

[bugkiller]

Agreed.

Animal sacrifices and offerings were introduced by God as "Shadows" pointing to the death of Christ. Then as Heb 10 points out -- with the sacrifice of Christ "He takes away the first and establishes the second" pointing to Christ as the true sacrifice for sin - to which all other sacrifices pointed as shadows.

rather the discord is between Deuteronomy 13 and your interpretation of Hebrews 10.

Deuteronomy 13 shows that your interpretation of Hebrews 10 is wrong, but if you refuse to accept that, then you will come up with odd constructs about "the author of Hebrews 10 is wrong", but either way it is false that God has removed even the smallest part from His moral law.

And as even the majority of pro-sunday scholars admit - the moral law of God including the TEN Commandments remain - whereas animal sacrifices, civil law under the theocracy, ceremonies based in animal sacrifice - ended.

Irrefutable.

Then we have to throw out your idea about mat 5:17-18.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

1 John 3:4-10 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

It is pretty clear that we are not to practice lawlessness, but rather we are to practice righteousness in obedience to the law. No one born of God makes a practice of lawlessness and those who do not practice righteousness are not born of God.

Practice righteousness, yes. That has nothing to do with being in submission to the law. Sin was before the law and so was righteousness (Romans 4 and 5).

Obedience to the law has never been about what we need to do to become redeemed, but rather it is about living by faith, for the righteous shall live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4).

True and the righteous live by faith and not the law. Romans, Galatians, I Timothy.

God's law is about how to love God and how to love your neighbor, so everyone who is born of God will love in the manner that the law instructs in accordance with the perfect example given to us by Jesus.

God's law yes, however that doesn't mean the covenant given to Israel alone.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The change is in the administration, not in the way to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct. God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness did not change between covenants.

That's' still a change of the law.

bugkiller

 

[Soyeong]

God changed the program and voided the law covenant made with Israel.

Those passages talk about a new covenant, but they say nothing about voiding God's law. On the contrary, they talk about God putting His law on our inward parts and writing it on our hearts. Jesus said he came not to do away the least part of God's law, so I don't think he voided any of them, but if you think that he did, then you should also think that he sinned and was a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 4:2 and 13:4-6, which should cause you to reconsider your interpretation.

I'll ask you one more time what is the law of sin. I find no statement about your law of sin in the chapter except in the law verse. The whole chapter is about the law commonly referred to as the law of Moses which includes the famous 10 Cs. Paul clearly says he sins because he covets (one of the 10).

bugkiller

Romans 7:7-25 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

He says that God's law is holy, righteous, and good, and it is the good that he seeks to do and delights in doing, but there is another law waging war against God's law making him captive to the law of sin that dwells in his members that hinders him from obeying God's law.

That's' still a change of the law.

bugkiller

Same holy, righteous, and good commands, new administration.

 

[bugkiller]

I have never suggested that you have the obey the law in order to be saved, that was never the reason why God gave the law in the first place.

So then how can one willfully and habitually practice sin and be a saint ( a righteous person)?

Salvation is from sin, sin is the transgression of the law, the law instructs us how to love, and the wages of sin is death, so our salvation from sin involves both Christ paying the penalty for our transgressions of the law and causing us to come into obedience to the law. However, we are not saved by loving others, but rather we are saved for the purpose of loving others. We are saved by grace through faith, not by doing good works, but for the purpose of doing them by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10) and God's law instructs us how to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Then you confess/admit one must keep the law to be saved. No sin is also (not only) a transgression of the law. But to transgress something one must be obligated to it/under its jurisdiction. The Christian (even an ethnic Jewish Christian) is delivered from the law Rom 7:6.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I love God, so I practice obedience to His law. I have faith in God that He knows how I should live, so I practice obedience to His law. The law is of the Spirit and God sent His Spirit to lead us in obedience to His law, so I practice obedience to His law. I abide in Christ, so I practice obedience to his law and practice walking as he walked. God sent His Son to die to save me from lawlessness, so I practice obedience to His law. The Bible speaks strongly against lawlessness, so I practice obedience to his law. The Bible speaks strongly against sin, so I practice obedience to His law. Those who practice righteousness are born of God, so I practice obedience to His law. Throughout the Bible God wants His chosen people to obey His law, and I am a member of God's chosen people through faith in Messiah, so I practice obedience to His law. I want to live abundantly and be someone whom God can bless, so I practice obedience to His law. I love the law and delight in it, as Paul and David did, so I practice obedience to the law. The Bible says to do what is holy, righteous, and good, so I practice obedience to His law. I am God's representative to the nations, so I practice obedience to His law. I am a follower of God, so I practice obedience to His law.



Helping others is not distinct from God's law because it instructs us to help others.

No God didn't send HIS only begotten Son (Jesus) to lead us in obedience/submission to the law.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

It is straightforward that followers of God should follow His commands, and as a follower of God, you are actually arguing against following His commands, so you should really consider whether it you who have misunderstood the whole Bible. Throughout the Bible God has always wanted His people to turn from their ways and obey His commands.



We are the pursue the law by faith as it was always intended, for the righteous shall live by faith, but they were pursuing the law as if righteousness were by works, which is a legalistic perversion of God's law. Christ is the goal of the law because it is all about him and he is the one who can pay our penalty for transgressing the law and cause us to be able to keep it by grace through faith. Saying that Christ brought an end to God's law is like saying that he brought an end to God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness. Furthermore, if Paul said that Christ brought an end to the law, then according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, Paul and/or Jesus were false prophets, so you should reconsider your interpretation. Paul said that our faith in Messiah does not abolish the law, but rather it upholds the law (Romans 3:31), so clearly Messiah did not bring about an end to the law, but rather he is the goal of the law.

No one must understand I John 3:23 and other verses using the word (commandment(s)."

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Those passages talk about a new covenant, but they say nothing about voiding God's law. On the contrary, they talk about God putting His law on our inward parts and writing it on our hearts. Jesus said he came not to do away the least part of God's law, so I don't think he voided any of them, but if you think that he did, then you should also think that he sinned and was a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 4:2 and 13:4-6, which should cause you to reconsider your interpretation.

How so? What exactly does "not according to" mean to you?

Romans 7:7-25 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

What is the bolded blue? what I understand is the law is called the law of sin. The more the law is preached, the more one dwells on it and its concepts placing it in the mind to disobey. I'm sure you don't understand what I've just said. I' don't really believe you understand the nature of man.

He says that God's law is holy, righteous, and good, and it is the good that he seeks to do and delights in doing, but there is another law waging war against God's law making him captive to the law of sin that dwells in his members that hinders him from obeying God's law.

There is so much more in Romans to understand what is beings said here. This post would be a really long post and I'd lose you and others.

Same holy, righteous, and good commands, new administration.

Nope!!! a thousand times NOPE!!! just like I told BobRyan.

bugkiller

 

[Soyeong]

Practice righteousness, yes. That has nothing to do with being in submission to the law. Sin was before the law and so was righteousness (Romans 4 and 5).

God has always been holy, righteous, and good, so He has always had such a conduct, and His law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) because it based on God's character and it is His instructions for how to have such a conduct. So the way to have such a conduct has existed from the beginning, exists independently of any covenant, and did not change between any of God's covenants any more than His character has changed. In other words, even if God had made no covenants with man and never gave the law to Moses, it would still be unrighteous to not act in line with God's righteousness. So the fact that righteousness existed before the law was given to Moses doesn't change that the law is still God's instructions for how to have a righteous conduct and how to avoid a sinful conduct.

True and the righteous live by faith and not the law. Romans, Galatians, I Timothy.

If you have faith that God knows how to live righteously, then you will live in obedience to His instructions in His law for how to do so. If you don't have faith that God knows how to live righteously and think you know better than God how to live, then you will disregard His law. In Habakkuk 2:4, it is not talking about the righteous living in some other manner that is distinct from obedience to God's law, but rather God's law is the way to live by faith. However, God's law can be obeyed legalistically rather than by faith, which is what is being criticized in those books.

God's law yes, however that doesn't mean the covenant given to Israel alone.

bugkiller

At no point was the covenant made with anyone outside of the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

Another very lovely passage. My guess is that you don't love Jesus, but then maybe you mean God the Father when you refer to the commandments. Personally I understand you and John to be talking about different commandments.The above passage isn't about keeping the law. And you preach something you refuse to do.

bugkiller

1 John 2:4-6 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

I love Messiah so I obey his commands. These verses associate obedience to Messiah's commands with walking in the same way that he walked, and he walked in perfect obedience to the law, so that is also the way to obey his commands. Jesus did command one thing and live out another, but rather he practiced what he preached and preached what he practiced. I also disagree that I refuse to practice what I preach and would appreciate it if you would refrain from slander.

So then how can one willfully and habitually practice sin and be a saint ( a righteous person)?

A righteous person is someone who does what is righteous by grace through faith, which is in accordance with God's instructions in His law for how to do so.

Then you confess/admit one must keep the law to be saved. No sin is also (not only) a transgression of the law. But to transgress something one must be obligated to it/under its jurisdiction. The Christian (even an ethnic Jewish Christian) is delivered from the law Rom 7:6.

bugkiller

Again, I have never suggested that you have the obey the law in order to be saved, that was never the reason why God gave the law in the first place. The law was given to point out our sin and our salvation is from sin, so our salvation is from transgressing the law. The law is not an exhaustive list of everything that is sinful, but the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), so transgressing the law includes transgressing its spiritual principles, which do cover everything that is sinful.

In Romans 7:1-5, when the woman's husband died, she was not released from having to obey any of the laws so that she was free to commit adultery, murder, theft, etc., but rather she was only released from the aspect of it that would penalize her if she were to live with another man while her husband was still alive. In the same way, we haven't been released from the law so that we are free to commit adultery, murder, theft, etc., but rather we have only been released from the aspect of the law that would penalize us for breaking it. In other words, if we abide in Messiah, we are not free to sin, but we are not condemned if we do. Someone who abides in Christ, is again someone who obeys his commands and walks as he walked, which is in obedience to God's law.

No God didn't send HIS only begotten Son (Jesus) to lead us in obedience/submission to the law.

bugkiller

God's law requires obedience and Christ was sent that we might meet the requirement of the law (Romans 8:4). It is those who have a carnal mind who refuse to submit to God's law (Romans 8:7).

No one must understand I John 3:23 and other verses using the word (commandment(s)."

bugkiller

Again, Christ was not in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have, but rather he said his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16) and that he only came to do the Father's will (John 6:38). God's law is His instructions for how to love Him and how to love our neighbor, so saying that Messiah's command is to love is essentially the same thing. The way that he loved us was in perfect accordance with the way that God's law instructs us to love, so if we love others in the way that he loved us, then we will also live in accordance with God's law.[/QUOTE]

How so? What exactly does "not according to" mean to you?

According to Deuteronomy 13, someone is a false prophet if they teach against following any of God's commands, so if you think that Jesus did so, then he was a false prophet and not the Messiah.

What is the bolded blue? what I understand is the law is called the law of sin.

Romans 7:22-23 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

Paul directly said that he delighted in God's law and then contrasted that with the law of sin, so they are opposites. He said that the law was good (Roman 7:16), so that is the good that he seeks to do, but he struggles with the law of sin causing him to not to do the good that he wants to do.

The more the law is preached, the more one dwells on it and its concepts placing it in the mind to disobey. I'm sure you don't understand what I've just said. I' don't really believe you understand the nature of man. There is so much more in Romans to understand what is beings said here. This post would be a really long post and I'd lose you and others.

This is the reason why reverse psychology works. The law increases our sin because we want to do the opposite of what we are told to do, but God's primary purpose in giving the law was to bring about obedience, not disobedience. Throughout the Bible God wants His chosen people to turn from their disobedience to obedience to His law.

Nope!!! a thousand times NOPE!!! just like I told BobRyan.

bugkiller

God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness didn't change, so the way to live according to His character also didn't change. Repeating "NOPE!!!" as many times as you want won't change that either.

 

[BobRyan]

I do not think there is any discord between Deuteronomy 13 and Hebrews 10,

Agreed.

Animal sacrifices and offerings were introduced by God as "Shadows" pointing to the death of Christ. Then as Heb 10 points out -- with the sacrifice of Christ "He takes away the first and establishes the second" pointing to Christ as the true sacrifice for sin - to which all other sacrifices pointed as shadows.

rather the discord is between Deuteronomy 13 and your interpretation of Hebrews 10.

Deuteronomy 13 shows that your interpretation of Hebrews 10 is wrong, but if you refuse to accept that, then you will come up with odd constructs about "the author of Hebrews 10 is wrong", but either way it is false that God has removed even the smallest part from His moral law.

And as even the majority of pro-sunday scholars admit - the moral law of God including the TEN Commandments remain - whereas animal sacrifices, civil law under the theocracy, ceremonies based in animal sacrifice - ended.

Irrefutable.

Then we have to throw out your idea about mat 5:17-18.

bugkiller

Just not in real life.

In real life - Matt 5:17-18 is not "my ideah".

In real life - quoting the text dispels the either-or logical fallacies some people invent.

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls 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 keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

In real life - predictive laws are ceremonial and prescriptive laws are moral.

Predictions can be fulfilled or rebelled against. But God prescriptive laws remain - they define sin and are binding on all mankind according to Romans 3 and Galatians 3.

But prescriptions are only obeyed - so if one person goes at the 60 MPH speed limit - so still - does everyone else have to do it.

 

[BobRyan]

1 John 3:4 "SIN IS transgression of the LAW"

And 1 John 3:4 has not been rescinded/replaced.

Problem is that covenant is rescinded and replaced with another much different covenant of promises instead of law.

bugkiller

Heb 8:6-10 Christ's New Covenant and His TEN Commandments at Sinai
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

A New Covenant
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a New Covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.

 

[Soyeong]

Agreed.

Animal sacrifices and offerings were introduced by God as "Shadows" pointing to the death of Christ. Then as Heb 10 points out -- with the sacrifice of Christ "He takes away the first and establishes the second" pointing to Christ as the true sacrifice for sin - to which all other sacrifices pointed as shadows.

Shadows are all throughout the OT and are important teachings about the Messiah that point to him not because he is the one who will do away with them, but because he is the one who brings substance to them. For example, as our Passover Lamb, he brings substance or full understanding to Passover and the word can also be translated as "rehearsal" because Passover is a rehearsal of what we will be doing during his reign. Taking away the first to establish the second is referring to a change in the administratio, not a change in the law. If you think the author of Hebrews is advocating a change in the law, then you should consider him to be a false prophet and disregard what he said or you should reconsider your interpretation of him.

And as even the majority of pro-sunday scholars admit - the moral law of God including the TEN Commandments remain - whereas animal sacrifices, civil law under the theocracy, ceremonies based in animal sacrifice - ended.

Irrefutable.

Perhaps it is irrefutable that the majority of pro-sunday scholars hold that position, but that position is far from irrefutable. According to Deuteronomy 13, everyone who says any of God's laws have ended is not speaking for God. We must obey God rather than men, so if God says to do something and man says that we don't have to do that any more, then we are to obey God and disregard man.

 

[BobRyan]

I do not think there is any discord between Deuteronomy 13 and Hebrews 10,

Agreed.

Animal sacrifices and offerings were introduced by God as "Shadows" pointing to the death of Christ. Then as Heb 10 points out -- with the sacrifice of Christ "He takes away the first and establishes the second" pointing to Christ as the true sacrifice for sin - to which all other sacrifices pointed as shadows.

rather the discord is between Deuteronomy 13 and your interpretation of Hebrews 10.

Deuteronomy 13 shows that your interpretation of Hebrews 10 is wrong, but if you refuse to accept that, then you will come up with odd constructs about "the author of Hebrews 10 is wrong", but either way it is false that God has removed even the smallest part from His moral law.

And as even the majority of pro-sunday scholars admit - the moral law of God including the TEN Commandments remain - whereas animal sacrifices, civil law under the theocracy, ceremonies based in animal sacrifice - ended.

Irrefutable.


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)

Perhaps it is irrefutable that the majority of pro-sunday scholars hold that position,

Indeed... that is irrefutable.

Then we have to throw out your idea about mat 5:17-18.

bugkiller

Just not in real life.

In real life - Matt 5:17-18 is not "my ideah".

In real life - quoting the text dispels the either-or logical fallacies some people invent.

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls 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 keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

In real life - predictive laws are ceremonial and prescriptive laws are moral.

Predictions can be fulfilled or rebelled against. But God prescriptive laws remain - they define sin and are binding on all mankind according to Romans 3 and Galatians 3.

But prescriptions are only obeyed - so if one person goes at the 60 MPH speed limit - so still - does everyone else have to do it.

so if God says to do something and man says that we don't have to do that any more, then we are to obey God and disregard man.

True.

No wonder Christ upholds what "Moses said" in Mark 7 calling it "The WORD of GOD"

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

John 14:15 "IF you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments"

"Love ME and KEEP My Commandments" Ex 20:6 -- from the TEN Commandments.

No wonder NT authors affirm the TEN Commandments as part of the moral law of God for the saints even in the NT as we see here
14 minutes ago #1

 

[disciple1]

Agreed.

Animal sacrifices and offerings were introduced by God as "Shadows" pointing to the death of Christ. Then as Heb 10 points out -- with the sacrifice of Christ "He takes away the first and establishes the second" pointing to Christ as the true sacrifice for sin - to which all other sacrifices pointed as shadows.

rather the discord is between Deuteronomy 13 and your interpretation of Hebrews 10.

Deuteronomy 13 shows that your interpretation of Hebrews 10 is wrong, but if you refuse to accept that, then you will come up with odd constructs about "the author of Hebrews 10 is wrong", but either way it is false that God has removed even the smallest part from His moral law.

And as even the majority of pro-sunday scholars admit - the moral law of God including the TEN Commandments remain - whereas animal sacrifices, civil law under the theocracy, ceremonies based in animal sacrifice - ended.

Irrefutable.


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)



Indeed... that is irrefutable.




Just not in real life.

In real life - Matt 5:17-18 is not "my ideah".

In real life - quoting the text dispels the either-or logical fallacies some people invent.

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls 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 keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

In real life - predictive laws are ceremonial and prescriptive laws are moral.

Predictions can be fulfilled or rebelled against. But God prescriptive laws remain - they define sin and are binding on all mankind according to Romans 3 and Galatians 3.

But prescriptions are only obeyed - so if one person goes at the 60 MPH speed limit - so still - does everyone else have to do it.



True.

No wonder Christ upholds what "Moses said" in Mark 7 calling it "The WORD of GOD"

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

John 14:15 "IF you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments"

"Love ME and KEEP My Commandments" Ex 20:6 -- from the TEN Commandments.

No wonder NT authors affirm the TEN Commandments as part of the moral law of God for the saints even in the NT as we see here
14 minutes ago #1

Hebrews chapter 7

11. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

12. For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.


18. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

19. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

 

[BobRyan]

Hebrews chapter 7

11. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

12. For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.


18. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

19. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

True of the earthly priesthood.

Not true of --

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" according to Christ in Matt 22.
Deut 6:5 "love God with all your heart" according to Christ in Matt 22.
Eph 6:2 the TEN commandments in which the 5th commandment is "the FIRST commandment with a promise" according to Paul

 

[Bob S]

Hebrews chapter 7

11. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

12. For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.


18. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

19. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Had the old covenant been truly perfect there would not have been any use for a "better" covenant.

 

[disciple1]

True of the earthly priesthood.

Not true of --

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" according to Christ in Matt 22.
Deut 6:5 "love God with all your heart" according to Christ in Matt 22.
Eph 6:2 the TEN commandments in which the 5th commandment is "the FIRST commandment with a promise" according to Paul

This is true of all law and all commandments.
Hebrews chapter 7

11. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

12. For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.


18. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

19. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
The only thing we can do is to love.
1 peter chapter 4
8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
Jeremiah chapter 22 verse 16
He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me?”
declares the Lord.

 

[Bob S]

True of the earthly priesthood.

Not true of --

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" according to Christ in Matt 22.
Deut 6:5 "love God with all your heart" according to Christ in Matt 22.
Eph 6:2 the TEN commandments in which the 5th commandment is "the FIRST commandment with a promise" according to Paul

All covered and much much more in the new command Jesus introduced.
John 13:34
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

Can you imagine how much our God loves us. He laid down His life all the while carrying all of the sins of the world. Jesus gave us a challenge that we are unable to fathom, yet He covers where we fail. This plus loving Him with all our hearts is all He demands of His children. No old covenant ritual laws are attached and no abstinence of certain foods are attached

 

[disciple1]

True of the earthly priesthood.

Not true of --

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" according to Christ in Matt 22.
Deut 6:5 "love God with all your heart" according to Christ in Matt 22.
Eph 6:2 the TEN commandments in which the 5th commandment is "the FIRST commandment with a promise" according to Paul

Hebrews chapter 7
19. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
No law anywhere in the old testament or new makes anything perfect.
It's only through love we have anything.
Jeremiah chapter 22 verse 16
He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me?”
declares the Lord.

 

[bugkiller]

God has always been holy, righteous, and good, so He has always had such a conduct, and His law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) because it based on God's character and it is His instructions for how to have such a conduct. So the way to have such a conduct has existed from the beginning, exists independently of any covenant, and did not change between any of God's covenants any more than His character has changed. In other words, even if God had made no covenants with man and never gave the law to Moses, it would still be unrighteous to not act in line with God's righteousness. So the fact that righteousness existed before the law was given to Moses doesn't change that the law is still God's instructions for how to have a righteous conduct and how to avoid a sinful conduct.

What exactly are you calling the law? Are you saying the law is God's instructions to mankind? Are you saying that one can be righteous if they keep the law? If so can you name anyone except Jesus that has done so? Remember no one can see God without being righteous. Abraham sinned. David sinned. Both are righteous. How can this be? (hint Romans 4)

If you have faith that God knows how to live righteously, then you will live in obedience to His instructions in His law for how to do so. If you don't have faith that God knows how to live righteously and think you know better than God how to live, then you will disregard His law. In Habakkuk 2:4, it is not talking about the righteous living in some other manner that is distinct from obedience to God's law, but rather God's law is the way to live by faith. However, God's law can be obeyed legalistically rather than by faith, which is what is being criticized in those books.

What are God's instructions to whom? Please quote at least 2 of them.

At no point was the covenant made with anyone outside of the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

Then is no one except those 2 houses eligible for salvation? How can Acts be true if this is the case? Remember Peter marveled that gentiles had the very same gift given on the day of Pentecost.

1 John 2:4-6 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Please identify each him, his and he for us.

I love Messiah so I obey his commands. These verses associate obedience to Messiah's commands with walking in the same way that he walked, and he walked in perfect obedience to the law, so that is also the way to obey his commands. Jesus did command one thing and live out another, but rather he practiced what he preached and preached what he practiced. I also disagree that I refuse to practice what I preach and would appreciate it if you would refrain from slander.

What are the Messiah's commands? Please keep JN 1:17 in mind when you respond.

No. You're requiring us to keep the law which we're delivered from. Rom 7:6 doesn't say we're delivered from the punishment of the law.

I didn't slander you in the least. Its a fact you don't keep the 4th commandment if you use electricity even passively because it requires your servant to work on the Sabbath. That is forbidden by the 4th commandment. It is your choice to not use electricity on the Sabbath. If that meter turns you purchased goods (conducted business for personal consumption).

A righteous person is someone who does what is righteous by grace through faith, which is in accordance with God's instructions in His law for how to do so.

No. Righteousness does not come by performance under any covenant. See Rom 4.

Again, I have never suggested that you have the obey the law in order to be saved, that was never the reason why God gave the law in the first place. The law was given to point out our sin and our salvation is from sin, so our salvation is from transgressing the law. The law is not an exhaustive list of everything that is sinful, but the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), so transgressing the law includes transgressing its spiritual principles, which do cover everything that is sinful.

According to you one must perform righteousness to be righteous. This doesn't line up with Rom 4. No one does good (keeps the law). No one can either. See Isa 63:17, Psalms 14:3 and Rom 3:23. Another thing is redemption was promised long before the law - Gen 3:15. The law is another thing the Christians is redeemed from.

In Romans 7:1-5, when the woman's husband died, she was not released from having to obey any of the laws so that she was free to commit adultery, murder, theft, etc., but rather she was only released from the aspect of it that would penalize her if she were to live with another man while her husband was still alive. In the same way, we haven't been released from the law so that we are free to commit adultery, murder, theft, etc., but rather we have only been released from the aspect of the law that would penalize us for breaking it. In other words, if we abide in Messiah, we are not free to sin, but we are not condemned if we do. Someone who abides in Christ, is again someone who obeys his commands and walks as he walked, which is in obedience to God's law.

The law in this passage is the husband. The husband (the law) died. No one is free to sin. All people sin. There's not a single passage that will back up your idea the Christian is released from punishment if we're subject to the law. Mat 5:17-18 is all the proof needed.

God's law requires obedience and Christ was sent that we might meet the requirement of the law (Romans 8:4). It is those who have a carnal mind who refuse to submit to God's law (Romans 8:7).

NO. The Christian is delivered from the law - Rom 7:6 and more like Jer 31:31-33 coupled with Mat 26:28 and 2 other gospels.

Again, Christ was not in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have, but rather he said his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16) and that he only came to do the Father's will (John 6:38). God's law is His instructions for how to love Him and how to love our neighbor, so saying that Messiah's command is to love is essentially the same thing. The way that he loved us was in perfect accordance with the way that God's law instructs us to love, so if we love others in the way that he loved us, then we will also live in accordance with God's law.

[/quote]Jesus didn't teach nor bring the law according to JN 1:17 and the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew. Jesus didn't require the keeping of the law either - JH 15:10.

According to Deuteronomy 13, someone is a false prophet if they teach against following any of God's commands, so if you think that Jesus did so, then he was a false prophet and not the Messiah.

No because of Jer 31:31-33. Besides that Luke 16:16 say the law was until John. Gal 3:19 says until the seed (Jesus) should come.

Romans 7:22-23 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

Paul directly said that he delighted in God's law and then contrasted that with the law of sin, so they are opposites. He said that the law was good (Roman 7:16), so that is the good that he seeks to do, but he struggles with the law of sin causing him to not to do the good that he wants to do.

Paul shows the law of sin is the created by disobedience to the law of God which kills the same as the law of sin.

This is the reason why reverse psychology works. The law increases our sin because we want to do the opposite of what we are told to do, but God's primary purpose in giving the law was to bring about obedience, not disobedience. Throughout the Bible God wants His chosen people to turn from their disobedience to obedience to His law.

No again. No law-no charge to punish. The law was and remains a legal instrument requiring punishment for violation. Grace can release on from punishment. Thus grace voids the law.

God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness didn't change, so the way to live according to His character also didn't change. Repeating "NOPE!!!" as many times as you want won't change that either.

Nope!!!!! the covenant has changed from law to promises. The receiver of a promise can't violate it.

bugkiller