GOD'S PEOPLE ARE TO BE A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD?

[Leaf473]

the idea that God can use fallible men to interpret and teach that Scripture correctly and with His authority

I think it's interesting to note that
the same people who were involved in interpreting what scripture meant by a royal priesthood
were also coming up with the list of books we call the New testament.

 

[pescador]

I agree that we are not under the law. At the same time, we fulfill the entire law, do we not?
Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Yes, that is the case. It bothers me a great deal that some Christians do not understand this basic truth. They try to please God by putting themselves under the law, which is denying the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice.

Romans 6:10, "For the death he died, he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives, he lives to God."

Romans 7:4, "So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God."

 

[Leaf473]

If you do not want to answer the questions asked of you Leaf just say so. You do not have to if you do not want to.

Here are the three questions I see in the post I was responding to:

How does this answer anything in the post you are quoting from?

As I have explained, the issue I see is keeping the commandments in principle or by the letter.

How can you keep the Spirit of the law without keeping the letter of the law?

As I indicated earlier to @pescador,
Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

is an example of keeping, better yet fulfilling, the entire law in principle.

But I think it is doubtful that you will accept that until you see the problem that arises when you try to keep all of God's eternal commandments by the letter.

You cannot can you

I disagree, and I'm attempting to explain why.

It would be very helpful, I think, if you would say whether Leviticus 2732 is or is not part of God's eternal law.

 

[pescador]

Ultimately authority has something to do with every OP. Any topic can and will be debated until the cows come home without resolution until there is a recognition that there is indeed an authority other than Sacred Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 does indeed tell us that for a bishop, Scripture will be useful in their role to teach, reproof, correct and train in righteousness. "Useful" however is a far cry from "only" or "sufficient."

The Bible doesn't refer to itself as the "word of God." It identifies the "word of God" as being first and foremost Christ. It also speaks to the "word of God" when referring to the oral witness of the apostles, and the body of believers. Quite ironicallly (to me at least) considering Sacred Scripture to be part of the word of God is rooted more in Sacred Tradition than Scripture.

Doctrine can be correctly defined and Christian people may not follow it. That happens all the time. It doesn't reflect on the correct doctrine however.

One of the things that is most puzzling to me though and probably always will be is that people have no problem thinking that God can use fallible men to pen infallible Scripture, but then totally reject the idea that God can use fallible men to interpret and teach that Scripture correctly and with His authority.

How about quoting that section of Paul's letter more completely...

2 Timothy 3:16-17, "Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work."

God can use indeed use fallible men to interpret and teach that Scripture correctly and with His authority, but they can also interpret and teach that Scripture incorrectly. The scripture itself is inspired by God but people can misinterpret it, as Scripture clearly says...

2 Peter 3:16b, "Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures."

 

[pescador]

Here are the three questions I see in the post I was responding to:



As I have explained, the issue I see is keeping the commandments in principle or by the letter.



As I indicated earlier to @pescador,
Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

is an example of keeping, better yet fulfilling, the entire law in principle.

But I think it is doubtful that you will accept that until you see the problem that arises when you try to keep all of God's eternal commandments by the letter.

I disagree, and I'm attempting to explain why.

It would be very helpful, I think, if you would say whether Leviticus 2732 is or is not part of God's eternal law.

Leviticus 27:32? My Bible has this verse: "All the tithe of herds or flocks, everything which passes under the rod, the tenth one will be holy to the Lord."

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Here are the three questions I see in the post I was responding to: As I have explained, the issue I see is keeping the commandments in principle or by the letter. As I indicated earlier to @pescador, Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." is an example of keeping, better yet fulfilling, the entire law in principle. But I think it is doubtful that you will accept that until you see the problem that arises when you try to keep all of God's eternal commandments by the letter.

The question was not how can we fulfill God's law. The question was how can we fulfill the Spirit of the law without fulfilling the letter of the law? - You cannot as you need to know the letter of the law before we can fulfill the Spirit of the law in God's new covenant promise *Hebrews 8:10-12.

It is the Spirit of the law that fulfills the letter of the law and is why Jesus say on these two great commandments of love to God and man hang all the law and the prophets *Matthew 22:3-40. Therefore the Spirit of the law fulfills the letter of the law as shown by Paul in Romans 13:8-10...

Romans 13:8-10
[8], Owe no man anything, but to LOVE ONE ANOTHER: for HE THAT LOVES ANOTHER HAS FULFILLED THE LAW. [9], For this, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, THOU SHALT NOT KILL, THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, THOU SHALT NOT LIE, THOU SHALT NOT COVET; and IF THERE SHALL BE ANY OTHER COMMANDMENT, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. [10], Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW.

As shown above love is not separate from obedience to Gods' law. Love is expressed in obedience to Gods' law which fulfills the letter of the law which is Gods' new covenant promise of Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27 which is given to all those who are born again into Gods' new covenant promise to walk in obedience to God's law through love which is the Spirit of the law for God is love (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16) and it is His Spirit of love we are to have in our own lives and this is the love of God that we keep His commandments *1 John 5:2-3 and is why Jesus says if you love me keep my commandments. No one therefore loves God by breaking His commandments. Just as no one keeps the Spirit of the law by breaking the letter of the law according to the scriptures.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yes, that is the case. It bothers me a great deal that some Christians do not understand this basic truth. They try to please God by putting themselves under the law, which is denying the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice.

Romans 6:10, "For the death he died, he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives, he lives to God."

Romans 7:4, "So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God."

According to the scriptures in Romans 3:19-20 we are only "under the law" if we stand guilty before God of breaking the law which is sin according to the scriptures (Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4). God's new covenant promise is His law written on the heart to love in those who have been born again in the Spirit to be obedient to God's law *Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27; Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8-12 and 1 John 5:2-3; 1 John 3:4-9; Revelation 12:17: Revelation 14:12; Revelation 22:14. God's new covenant promise therefore is a promise of obedience to God's law in those who have been born again through faith that works by love *Romans 3:31; John 14:15; John 15:10; 1 John 4:7-20; 1 John 5:2-3; 2 John 1:6. Sin (breaking God's law) *1 John 3:4 therefore according to the scriptures is the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil according to 1 John 3:4-10 because whosoever is born of God does not practice sin (breaking God's law) *1 John 3:9.

Take Care.

 

[narnia59]

How about quoting that section of Paul's letter more completely...

2 Timothy 3:16-17, "Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work."

God can use indeed use fallible men to interpret and teach that Scripture correctly and with His authority, but they can also interpret and teach that Scripture incorrectly. The scripture itself is inspired by God but people can misinterpret it, as Scripture clearly says...

2 Peter 3:16b, "Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures."

I would quote all of St. Paul's letters to Timothy if I thought people would read them in context. They show the principle of apostolic succession quite clearly.

The quote about Scripture should stand as it's written, in the context it's written. Paul is writing to Timothy, who was a young man when he started out with Paul, grew with him in the faith, Paul writes many of his epistles from him and Timothy, he sends him out to teach, he ordained him, and in his letters to him you can see he is entrusting his ministry as an apostle to him.

And what he tells him about Scripture is it will be useful to him in his role -- to teach, to reproof, to correct and to train people in righteousness. If sola-Scriptura were true, Timothy shouldn't be needed to do any of those things. Each person reading Scripture for themselves should be all that's needed.

Paul also tells him he will need Scripture to be equipped for every good work. He doesn't tell him it's the only thing he will need, but people often apply that to the text. He doesn't tell him that Scripture alone will be sufficient for him, but people often apply that to the text. He tells him that it will be useful to him in his ministerial role.

People can indeed misinterpret Scripture. As indicated by Spoul's quote, when you profess that Scripture alone is infallible, it is necessary then to accept that "Church tradition and church creeds can err." Individual interpreters of Scripture can err," and the "individual is fallible when seeking to understand Scripture."

The logical conclusion to that is that while an individual may sincerely seek to understand Scripture and believe they have it figured out, they can never know with certainty that they do. Because their interpretation will always and forever be fallible.

It also means that God would have seen fit to provide infallible Scripture to his people, but no guarantee to anyone that they could know with certainty what it meant, because their, and any interpretation, will always and forever be fallible.

Fortunately, God also gave us the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:14-15) so that His manifold wisdom may be known (Ephesians 3:8-12).

 

[Leaf473]

Yes, that is the case. It bothers me a great deal that some Christians do not understand this basic truth. They try to please God by putting themselves under the law, which is denying the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice.

Romans 6:10, "For the death he died, he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives, he lives to God."

Romans 7:4, "So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God."

That's right, we don't want to be joined back to the law.

That would be like the Israelites that wanted to return to Egypt, another great teaching from the law.

 

[Leaf473]

The question was not how can we fulfill God's law. The question was how can we fulfill the Spirit of the law without fulfilling the letter of the law? - You cannot as you need to know the letter of the law before we can fulfill the Spirit of the law in God's new covenant promise *Hebrews 8:10-12.

It is the Spirit of the law that fulfills the letter of the law and is why Jesus say on these two great commandments of love to God and man hang all the law and the prophets *Matthew 22:3-40. Therefore the Spirit of the law fulfills the letter of the law as shown by Paul in Romans 13:8-10...

Romans 13:8-10
[8], Owe no man anything, but to LOVE ONE ANOTHER: for HE THAT LOVES ANOTHER HAS FULFILLED THE LAW. [9], For this, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, THOU SHALT NOT KILL, THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, THOU SHALT NOT LIE, THOU SHALT NOT COVET; and IF THERE SHALL BE ANY OTHER COMMANDMENT, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. [10], Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW.

As shown above love is not separate from obedience to Gods' law. Love is expressed in obedience to Gods' law which fulfills the letter of the law which is Gods' new covenant promise of Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27 which is given to all those who are born again into Gods' new covenant promise to walk in obedience to God's law through love which is the Spirit of the law for God is love (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16) and it is His Spirit of love we are to have in our own lives and this is the love of God that we keep His commandments *1 John 5:2-3 and is why Jesus says if you love me keep my commandments. No one therefore loves God by breaking His commandments. Just as no one keeps the Spirit of the law by breaking the letter of the law according to the scriptures.

Hope this is helpful.

Unfortunately, it is not helpful, because it does not address the issue that I raised.

Where I think your teaching begins to unravel is in talking about details of laws in addition to the ten commandments.

As long as you limit your discussion to the 10 and the rest of the law just in a very general sense, your teaching can hold together. It's in the details of other laws such as Leviticus 27:32 that the threads begin to show, imo.

I think it would be great if you could wrap up those loose threads for me.

That would mean discussing in detail how you keep the letter of Leviticus 27:32. If you don't have at least 10 animals, it would mean discussing in detail how someone who does would keep the letter of that law.

 

[pescador]

I would quote all of St. Paul's letters to Timothy if I thought people would read them in context. They show the principle of apostolic succession quite clearly.

The quote about Scripture should stand as it's written, in the context it's written. Paul is writing to Timothy, who was a young man when he started out with Paul, grew with him in the faith, Paul writes many of his epistles from him and Timothy, he sends him out to teach, he ordained him, and in his letters to him you can see he is entrusting his ministry as an apostle to him.

And what he tells him about Scripture is it will be useful to him in his role -- to teach, to reproof, to correct and to train people in righteousness. If sola-Scriptura were true, Timothy shouldn't be needed to do any of those things. Each person reading Scripture for themselves should be all that's needed.

Paul also tells him he will need Scripture to be equipped for every good work. He doesn't tell him it's the only thing he will need, but people often apply that to the text. He doesn't tell him that Scripture alone will be sufficient for him, but people often apply that to the text. He tells him that it will be useful to him in his ministerial role.

People can indeed misinterpret Scripture. As indicated by Spoul's quote, when you profess that Scripture alone is infallible, it is necessary then to accept that "Church tradition and church creeds can err." Individual interpreters of Scripture can err," and the "individual is fallible when seeking to understand Scripture."

The logical conclusion to that is that while an individual may sincerely seek to understand Scripture and believe they have it figured out, they can never know with certainty that they do. Because their interpretation will always and forever be fallible.

It also means that God would have seen fit to provide infallible Scripture to his people, but no guarantee to anyone that they could know with certainty what it meant, because their, and any interpretation, will always and forever be fallible.

Fortunately, God also gave us the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:14-15) so that His manifold wisdom may be known (Ephesians 3:8-12).

You wrote, "The logical conclusion to that is that while an individual may sincerely seek to understand Scripture and believe they have it figured out, they can never know with certainty that they do. Because their interpretation will always and forever be fallible."

This applies to all, including the clergy. correct? Or are they not human?

"It also means that God would have seen fit to provide infallible Scripture to his people, but no guarantee to anyone that they could know with certainty what it meant, because their, and any interpretation, will always and forever be fallible."

Again, this applies to all, including the clergy. correct? Or are they not human?

"Fortunately, God also gave us the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:14-15) so that His manifold wisdom may be known (Ephesians 3:8-12)."

This contradicts what you wrote earlier (unless the Church isn't comprised of humans).

 

[narnia59]

You wrote, "The logical conclusion to that is that while an individual may sincerely seek to understand Scripture and believe they have it figured out, they can never know with certainty that they do. Because their interpretation will always and forever be fallible."

This applies to all, including the clergy. correct? Or are they not human?

"It also means that God would have seen fit to provide infallible Scripture to his people, but no guarantee to anyone that they could know with certainty what it meant, because their, and any interpretation, will always and forever be fallible."

Again, this applies to all, including the clergy. correct? Or are they not human?

"Fortunately, God also gave us the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:14-15) so that His manifold wisdom may be known (Ephesians 3:8-12)."

This contradicts what you wrote earlier (unless the Church isn't comprised of humans).

I don't agree with sola-Scriptura. Therefore, I do not agree with the conclusions it demands as articulated by RC Sproul. But anyone who professes sola-Scriptura would by necessity be limited to his conclusions as far as I can tell.

He expressed that Church tradition and church creeds can err. I believe that the 21 ecumenical councils cannot be in error, because this is the church leadership coming together seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It's the same model we find in Acts 15 used by the apostles when they had a disagreement about the necessity of circumcision. Instead of splitting the Church, they came together in council and allowed the Holy Spirit to work through them to reach a unified decision. And the Nicean creed was the result of two of those early councils, so I do not believe that it can be in error.

When Luther and Calvin and Zwingli using sola-Scriptura as their basis could not agree on some of the basics of the faith, they chose to split the Church into their own denominations.

As to your question -- "Again, this applies to all, including the clergy. correct? Or are they not human?" Yes, they're human. Just like the men who wrote Sacred Scripture are human. God used fallible, human men to pen infallible Sacred Scripture. I'm not sure why it's such a stretch to think that God uses fallible, human men to express His will when questions about the faith occur. So that we can know with certainty, which is not possible if you're sola-Scriptura and any individual interpretation of Scripture is by definition fallible.

 

[Davy]

Colossians 2:14-17 is not talking about God's 10 commandments or is it talking about God's 4th commandment being a shadow of things to come.

That statement of course is flat denial of the Colossians 2:14-17 Scripture, because we are not to judge any man now involving the sabbaths.

And it does mean the seventh day sabbath per the old Hebrew reckoning, for it is a Greek word from the Hebrew for the Sabbath (OT: 7676).

Col 2:16
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath (sabbaton put for Hebrew shabbath) days:
KJV

The word "days" was added by the KJV translators, which is another indicator that Paul was pointing to the Hebrew Sabbath day.

This means Lord Jesus nailed the old covenant religious ritual requirements to His cross per The New Covenant.

 

[pescador]

I don't agree with sola-Scriptura. Therefore, I do not agree with the conclusions it demands as articulated by RC Sproul. But anyone who professes sola-Scriptura would by necessity be limited to his conclusions as far as I can tell.

He expressed that Church tradition and church creeds can err. I believe that the 21 ecumenical councils cannot be in error, because this is the church leadership coming together seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It's the same model we find in Acts 15 used by the apostles when they had a disagreement about the necessity of circumcision. Instead of splitting the Church, they came together in council and allowed the Holy Spirit to work through them to reach a unified decision. And the Nicean creed was the result of two of those early councils, so I do not believe that it can be in error.

When Luther and Calvin and Zwingli using sola-Scriptura as their basis could not agree on some of the basics of the faith, they chose to split the Church into their own denominations.

As to your question -- "Again, this applies to all, including the clergy. correct? Or are they not human?" Yes, they're human. Just like the men who wrote Sacred Scripture are human. God used fallible, human men to pen infallible Sacred Scripture. I'm not sure why it's such a stretch to think that God uses fallible, human men to express His will when questions about the faith occur. So that we can know with certainty, which is not possible if you're sola-Scriptura and any individual interpretation of Scripture is by definition fallible.

If the people that God uses are fallible then by definition they will make mistakes. But Scripture is infallible. Sola scriptura!

 

[narnia59]

You wrote, "The logical conclusion to that is that while an individual may sincerely seek to understand Scripture and believe they have it figured out, they can never know with certainty that they do. Because their interpretation will always and forever be fallible."

This applies to all, including the clergy. correct? Or are they not human?

"It also means that God would have seen fit to provide infallible Scripture to his people, but no guarantee to anyone that they could know with certainty what it meant, because their, and any interpretation, will always and forever be fallible."

Again, this applies to all, including the clergy. correct? Or are they not human?

"Fortunately, God also gave us the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:14-15) so that His manifold wisdom may be known (Ephesians 3:8-12)."

This contradicts what you wrote earlier (unless the Church isn't comprised of humans).

I wrote "The logical conclusion to that is that while an individual may sincerely seek to understand Scripture and believe they have it figured out, they can never know with certainty that they do. Because their interpretation will always and forever be fallible."

The "that" was this statement:

People can indeed misinterpret Scripture. As indicated by Spoul's quote, when you profess that Scripture alone is infallible, it is necessary then to accept that "Church tradition and church creeds can err." Individual interpreters of Scripture can err," and the "individual is fallible when seeking to understand Scripture."

The logical conclusion to a doctrine of Scripture alone is that nobody can claim infallibility when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Not clergy, not lay people, not individuals. NOBODY. That is the gist of Sproul's quote. So yes, he, and anyone who adheres to sola-Scriptura would say that applies to the clergy. And within that belief, there can never be any certainty than any interpretation is accurate.

But I am not sola-Scriptura. So yes, I read that in Scripture God also gave us the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:14-15) so that His manifold wisdom may be known (Ephesians 3:8-12)." I believe that when Church comes together in an ecumenical council there is a chrism of infalliblity present. That is not a conflict for me because I am not an advocate of sola-Scriptura.

 

[Leaf473]

It seems to me that a key issue in the interpretation of scripture

(which applies to what is meant by a royal priesthood, to bring it around to the thread topic)

is whether the meeting in Acts 15 was a one-off event, just done that way because scripture hadn't yet been completed,

Or

the meeting in Acts 15 was a model for how God would guarantee his revelation when the church was facing an important issue.

 

[narnia59]

It seems to me that a key issue in the interpretation of scripture

(which applies to what is meant by a royal priesthood, to bring it around to the thread topic)

is whether the meeting in Acts 15 was a one-off event, just done that way because scripture hadn't yet been completed,

Or

the meeting in Acts 15 was a model for how God would guarantee his revelation when the church was facing an important issue.

A reasonable question.

The question I would have -- if it was really supposed to be sola-Scriptura once the apostles got Scripture written, why didn't Christ just pen Scripture himself the 30 years before he entered his public ministry. He would have known every major question that would come up, could have answered it clearly, never appointed certain men to have the authority the apostles did, amassed a group of followers with none having any authority over the others, after the resurrection handed them the book and that would be that. No need for a middle-man to get you from the time Christ ascended until the apostles got Scripture written.

 

[pescador]

A reasonable question.

The question I would have -- if it was really supposed to be sola-Scriptura once the apostles got Scripture written, why didn't Christ just pen Scripture himself the 30 years before he entered his public ministry. He would have known every major question that would come up, could have answered it clearly, never appointed certain men to have the authority the apostles did, amassed a group of followers with none having any authority over the others, after the resurrection handed them the book and that would be that. No need for a middle-man to get you from the time Christ ascended until the apostles got Scripture written.

First of all, the Old Testament was in existence before Christ so He couldn't have personally written it (in the flesh).

I don't think that anyone can possibly saw why Christ didn't just pen Scripture Himself. He did say that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide believers into all truth. John 16:13

The Word of God was given to men in both the Old Testament and New Testament eras. And then the giving of Scripture ended. That was God's decision, and I for one don't question why God does what He does.

I don't even understand what this means: No need for a middle-man to get you from the time Christ ascended until the apostles got Scripture written. (Unless you consider the Holy Spirit to be a middle-man.)

 

[narnia59]

First of all, the Old Testament was in existence before Christ so He couldn't have personally written it (in the flesh).

I don't think that anyone can possibly saw why Christ didn't just pen Scripture Himself. He did say that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide believers into all truth. John 16:13

The Word of God was given to men in both the Old Testament and New Testament eras. And then the giving of Scripture ended. That was God's decision, and I for one don't question why God does what He does.

I don't even understand what this means: No need for a middle-man to get you from the time Christ ascended until the apostles got Scripture written. (Unless you consider the Holy Spirit to be a middle-man.)

"He did say that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide believers into all truth. John 16:13"

That Scripture is from Christ's discourse with the apostles at the Last Supper. He promised to guide those he placed in authority over His Church into all truth. Context is always relevant.

If it was really for all believers, how come Luther, Calvin and Zwingli couldn't find that truth? Why did they have to split and form their own groups? And so on down through the ages.

"No need for a middle-man to get you from the time Christ ascended until the apostles got Scripture written." I just meant if the role of the apostles was only to last until the New Testament was complete, he could have just written the New Testament himself and not had a transitional period between his ascension and the completion of the New Testament that required the role of an apostle.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ The question was not how can we fulfill God's law. The question was how can we fulfill the Spirit of the law without fulfilling the letter of the law? - You cannot as you need to know the letter of the law before we can fulfill the Spirit of the law in God's new covenant promise *Hebrews 8:10-12.

It is the Spirit of the law that fulfills the letter of the law and is why Jesus say on these two great commandments of love to God and man hang all the law and the prophets *Matthew 22:3-40. Therefore the Spirit of the law fulfills the letter of the law as shown by Paul in Romans 13:8-10...

Romans 13:8-10
[8], Owe no man anything, but to LOVE ONE ANOTHER: for HE THAT LOVES ANOTHER HAS FULFILLED THE LAW. [9], For this, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, THOU SHALT NOT KILL, THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, THOU SHALT NOT LIE, THOU SHALT NOT COVET; and IF THERE SHALL BE ANY OTHER COMMANDMENT, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. [10], Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW.

As shown above love is not separate from obedience to Gods' law. Love is expressed in obedience to Gods' law which fulfills the letter of the law which is Gods' new covenant promise of Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27 which is given to all those who are born again into Gods' new covenant promise to walk in obedience to God's law through love which is the Spirit of the law for God is love (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16) and it is His Spirit of love we are to have in our own lives and this is the love of God that we keep His commandments *1 John 5:2-3 and is why Jesus says if you love me keep my commandments. No one therefore loves God by breaking His commandments. Just as no one keeps the Spirit of the law by breaking the letter of the law according to the scriptures.

Your response here...

Unfortunately, it is not helpful, because it does not address the issue that I raised. Where I think your teaching begins to unravel is in talking about details of laws in addition to the ten commandments. As long as you limit your discussion to the 10 and the rest of the law just in a very general sense, your teaching can hold together. It's in the details of other laws such as Leviticus 27:32 that the threads begin to show, imo. I think it would be great if you could wrap up those loose threads for me. That would mean discussing in detail how you keep the letter of Leviticus 27:32. If you don't have at least 10 animals, it would mean discussing in detail how someone who does would keep the letter of that law.

Sorry dear friend but I respectfully disagree. It seems it is you that does not want to talk detail. Your have been asked the same question now many times and you seek to want to avoid answering it, seeking instead to change the topic and subject matter. For example look at your response to the post you are quoting from and your how you ignored the same question I have asked you many times now. Like I said earlier you do not have to answer my question to you if you do not want to just say so. Perhaps you can pray about it. To be honest with you Leaf, I did not think you would answer the question again in the post you are quoting from now, that is why I decided to answer it for you from the scriptures for anyone else that might be interested.

Take Care