Law, Grace, Kingdom

[WordSword]

Yes, HE made a new way to the Father,

It's my understanding that though there was forgiveness to Israelites that believed in God (Num 15:25, 26, 28), but they never did want to be near Him because of fear. Their way to the Father was just forgiveness but no fellowship.

So yes, the first part of God's Salvation plan is finished. But all has yet to be fulfilled as the Christ Himself tells us. Therefore, Sin is still here, which means the Law and the Prophets Jesus said not to even "THINK" HE came to destroy, are here too

True, Christ did not come to "destroy" the Law before it was finished (completed). The Law was finished and it was time to move on to the new covenant. We can't have Law and Gospel. One led to the other.

 

[Studyman]

It's my understanding that though there was forgiveness to Israelites that believed in God (Num 15:25, 26, 28), but they never did want to be near Him because of fear. Their way to the Father was just forgiveness but no fellowship.

Please, I truly want to discuss Scripture. But you keep changing the subject, and as a result we go in circles. It is true people don't want to listen to GOD. AS the Scriptures show, it doesn't matter if it is God speaking directly, or through a Prophets HE chose to give them His Word by, or through the Word's HE inspired to be written, or the Words of HIS very own Son. A person who is truly seeking the Kingdom of God and HIS Righteousness, will listen to Him wherever HIS words can be found. Since we all have HIS Oracles in our own Homes, we have His Words. Now it just depends on what is more important to us, religious traditions of the land we were born into? Or do we trust Paul who teaches both Jew and Gentile;

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

True, Christ did not come to "destroy" the Law before it was finished (completed). The Law was finished and it was time to move on to the new covenant. We can't have Law and Gospel. One led to the other.

I prefer to "Yield myself" to the God of the Bible, and HIS Son, the Jesus of the bible. You are free to believe and/or promote any religion you would like. I am glad to discuss Scriptures I posted or answer questions you may have about them.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[WordSword]

Please, I truly want to discuss Scripture. But you keep changing the subject, and as a result we go in circles.

I'll try to keep the subject-matter in my replies but it's sometimes difficult not to stray a bit.

 

[expos4ever]

In fact, the Jesus of the Bible knew religious men would come and promote such a religion, and therefore, had Words of Warning for us, as HE saw this Philosophy coming.

Matt. 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Here Jesus, knowing men would try and convince me the Law and Prophets are no longer relevant, tells me not to even "THINK" such a thing. Clearly not all has been fulfilled, as Jesus has not yet returned with His Reward, as HE promised.

I will repeat an argument I have made many, many time and which I believe has never been challenged (often this argument is all too conveniently ignored by those who believe the Law is still in force):

There is a way to faithfully read Matt 5:17-18 and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago. In Hebrew culture, “end of the world” language was commonly used metaphorically to invest commonplace events with theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of use of “end of the world” imagery to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor?

It is Jesus’ death on the Cross where He proclaims “It is accomplished”. Note how this dovetails perfectly with the 5:18 declaration that the Law would remain until all is accomplished. Seeing things this way allows us to honour the established tradition of metaphorical end-of-the-world imagery and to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

You are telling us that not all has been accomplished. But Jesus's "it is finished" words on the cross at least raise the possibility that, in the sense that counts, all had indeed been accomplished at the cross.

 

[expos4ever]

In Matthew 4:17-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is, so it is also the kingdom system.

This is not correct logic. Just because people had used Torah to know what sin was does not necessarily mean that this means of gaining knowledge of sin will continue to function in that role - the past does not necessarily dictate the future.

And, in fact, we know that what you are suggesting is not the case. To wit:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I will on the lookout for the redefinition of the meaning of words in any attempt to accommodate this text into the view that the Law remains as our guide (it was only ever a guide for Jews anyway, not Gentiles).

 

[Soyeong]

This is not correct logic. Just because people had used Torah to know what sin was does not necessarily mean that this means of gaining knowledge of sin will continueto function in that role - the past does not necessarily dictate the future.


And, in fact, we know that what you are suggesting is not the case. To wit:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I will on the lookout for the redefinition of the meaning of words in any attempt to accommodate this text into the view that the Law remains as our guide (it was only ever a guide for Jews anyway, not Gentiles).

Sin is against God's nature and God's nature is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His nature are eternally valid, such as with God's righteousness being eternal meaning that any instructions that God has given for how to avoid doing what is unrighteous are eternally valid, for example, it will always be sinful to commit adultery.

We should seek to understand the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus taught in accordance with how its audience understood it. Again, in Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which Jesus prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14), which he commissioned his disciples to teach to the nations (Matthew 28:16-20), which is in accordance with Jesus being set in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26), which is the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), which he taught to those in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5). Thinking that Gentiles don't need to obey the Torah would mean that Gentiles do not need to believe the Gospel message and the promise, which is missing the whole point of what the Bible is essentially about.

2 Corinthians 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

There are many verses say that obedience to God's law brings life, that the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it, and that the New Covenant involves obeying it, so obeying the letter such as in Romans 7:6 should not be understood as correctly doing what God has instructed. On other other hand, correctly doing what God has instructed leads to death, then that would mean that God is misleading us and therefore that we should not have faith in Him. In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, but contrasted that with the law of sin which held him captive, so Romans 7:6 should not be interpreted as Paul speaking about being released from doing what he delighted in doing, but about being released from the influence of the law of sn that held him captive.

 

[expos4ever]

Sin is against God's nature and God's nature is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His nature are eternally valid, such as with God's righteousness being eternal meaning that any instructions that God has given for how to avoid doing what is unrighteous are eternally valid, for example, it will always be sinful to commit adultery.

Ok, let's say I agree that any instructions on how to act that are "in accordance with His nature" are eternally valid.

Does that include Sabbath observance? It would seem that the answer would be "no" since it is hard to argue that Sabbath observance is fundamentally a moral edict - a command that is intimately tied to God's nature.

We should seek to understand the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus taught in accordance with how its audience understood it. Again, in Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom,

This reasoning is incorrect - you are making the same question-begging assumption you made before: the past does not necessarily dictate the future. The fact that Torah was the guide in the past does not necessarily mean it will remain ever so. Even for "eternal moral values", I can argue that these will be disclosed to us by the agency of the Holy Spirit so we do not even need the Torah for those.

 

[Soyeong]

Ok, let's say I agree that any instructions on how to act that are "in accordance with His nature" are eternally valid.

Does that include Sabbath observance? It would seem that the answer would be "no" since it is hard to argue that Sabbath observance is fundamentally a moral edict - a command that is intimately tied to God's nature.

Of course that includes Sabbath observance. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes keep His Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3), so by doing that we are acting in accordance with and testifying about God's eternal holiness, which is an aspect of His eternal nature.

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's commands are inherently moral commands, including the command to keep the Sabbath holy. Likewise, morality is also based on what is in accordance or against God's nature, and God's law was given to teach us how to act in accordance to His nature, so again all of its commands are inherently fundamental moral edicts that are intimately tied to His nature.

This reasoning is incorrect - you are making the same question-begging assumption you made before: the past does not necessarily dictate the future. The fact that Torah was the guide in the past does not necessarily mean it will remain ever so. Even for "eternal moral values", I can argue that these will be disclosed to us by the agency of the Holy Spirit so we do not even need the Torah for those.

It is not incorrect reasoning to seek to understand what the Gospel of the Kingdom meant to the people that Jesus proclaimed to it, but rather the error in reasoning is unjustifiably thinking that it means something else today. God's righteousness and all of His righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:142, 160), which means that they have never changed and will never change in the future. The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Torah (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so that is not following something different than it.

 

[Studyman]

I will repeat an argument I have made many, many time and which I believe has never been challenged (often this argument is all too conveniently ignored by those who believe the Law is still in force):

It is Paul who says the Law is still in force, as he teaches both Jew and Gentile, years after the Jesus of the Bible ascended to His Father.

Rom. 6: 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin "unto death", or of obedience unto righteousness?

Sin still brings death, even years after the Christ ascended. Someone has convinced you otherwise, but it wasn't Paul.

According to Paul, as he also taught the Church of God under the New Priesthood, both Jew and Gentile;

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Heb. 10: 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

1 John 3: 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

From the very beginning there have been religious voices in the world God placed men in, who quote "some" of God's Word to convince as many as possible that God's Law is no longer in force. Eve was deceived by one such voice.

Paul understood this and taught as much to both Jew and Gentile.

1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

So with the foundation of your religion being, "God's Law is no longer in force", which is a falsehood, or "Leaven" according to Scriptures, every verse you read in the Bible is influenced through the prism of this deception. It would be like the Pharisees listening to Jesus, believing the lie that HE was from Galilee.

Paul tells us in Galatians 5.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

All these are defined as "SIN" by God's Law, and as Paul clearly shows, they are still in force.

So this entire post is predicated on a premise that is Biblically incorrect. You quote voices you heard in the garden God placed you in, voices who quote "some" of God's Word to convince men God's Law is "Expired". I am advocating for the study and belief, as my Lord instructs, of "Every Word which proceeds from the mouth of God". When a man does this, in belief (AKA, Faith), he can stand.

As Paul teaches;

Eph. 6: 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

And Jesus teaches the same;

Matt. 7: 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Every example of faithful man in the Holy Scriptures shared this same circumstance. From Abraham who was instructed, not to leave the world but his past life, to Caleb and Joshua who believed God, even when they were surrounded by "many" who didn't.

Jesus was born into the same circumstance. Born into a religion where men quoted "some" of God's Word, but who HE said Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

And these were all written for our admonition, "For our sakes no doubt" as Paul teaches both Jew and Gentile in the Church of God under God's Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek". So please consider that Jesus knew we too, would be surrounded by voices who profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate, as HE was, and place our trust in His Words, the Holy Scriptures for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:, and not those "many" who come in His Name.

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

 

[expos4ever]

It is Paul who says the Law is still in force, as he teaches both Jew and Gentile, years after the Jesus of the Bible ascended to His Father.

The fact that Paul teaches that the Law is still in force is another issue.

Once again, my argument is ignored.

And I suggest a neutral reader will draw the obvious conclusion: while not "proof" that Jesus believes the Law came to an end at the cross, at the very least the argument shows that one cannot use Matt 5:17-18 as evidence that Jesus believes the Law will be in force till the literal end of "heaven and earth"

Rom. 6: 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin "unto death", or of obedience unto righteousness?

Sin still brings death, even years after the Christ ascended. Someone has convinced you otherwise, but it wasn't Paul.

Strawman - I never posted anything that remotely suggests that I believe that sin does not bring death even years after Christ ascended.

According to Paul, as he also taught the Church of God under the New Priesthood, both Jew and Gentile;

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

How is this relevant? Surely you are not arguing that since the Law was in force before the cross - and we all agree on that - this necessarily means it has to be in force now simply because is part of "scripture that is profitable for doctrine, etc."

Using that reasoning, we would still be doing everything the Old Testament prescribes.

1 John 3: 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

People continue to post this misleading verse. The majority of translations of this verse have something like "sin is lawlessness" which entails no necessary connection to the Law of Moses.

From the very beginning there have been religious voices in the world God placed men in, who quote "some" of God's Word to convince as many as possible that God's Law is no longer in force. Eve was deceived by one such voice.

I could equally well level this accusation at you - claim that you are a "religious voice" in the world whose goal is to deceive.

Studyman, you do this all the time - when someone posts something you do not like, you engage in a systematic smear campaign, painting them as someone who has mindlessly adopted a "wordly religion" and is out to deceive. This is not the right way to conduct a serious discussion and I would ask that you stop using this tactic.

Paul understood this and taught as much to both Jew and Gentile.

1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

This text refers to the commandments of God, not the Law of Moses. You are engaging in circular reasoning here, assuming the very thing you should be making a case for. There are many "commandments of God" that are clearly not part of the Law of Moses.

So with the foundation of your religion being, "God's Law is no longer in force", which is a falsehood, or "Leaven" according to Scriptures, every verse you read in the Bible is influenced through the prism of this deception. It would be like the Pharisees listening to Jesus, believing the lie that HE was from Galilee.

Again with the demonization?

 

[WordSword]

The fact that Paul teaches that the Law is still in force is another issue.

And I suggest a neutral reader will draw the obvious conclusion: while not "proof" that Jesus believes the Law came to an end at the cross, at the very least the argument shows that one cannot use Matt 5:17-18 as evidence that Jesus believes the Law will be in force till the literal end of "heaven and earth"

Your correct expos4ever. There is no scriptural support in the NT that Paul teaching the continuation of the Law. And the Matthew 5 text is in the sense that heaven and earth would pass away before the Law would pass away: "Till heaven and earth pass" - This expression denotes that the law never would be destroyed until it should be all fulfilled. It is the same as saying everything else may change; the very earth and heaven may pass away, but the law of God shall not be destroyed until its whole design has been accomplished" -Albert Barnes

The Law was fulfilled when the Lord Jesus said on the Cross, "It is finished," i.e. it has been completed. It was to end the OT covenant in order to "establish the second" covenant, or new covenant in Christ's blood (Heb 10:9).

 

[Soyeong]

Your correct expos4ever. There is no scriptural support in the NT that Paul teaching the continuation of the Law. And the Matthew 5 text is in the sense that heaven and earth would pass away before the Law would pass away: "Till heaven and earth pass" - This expression denotes that the law never would be destroyed until it should be all fulfilled. It is the same as saying everything else may change; the very earth and heaven may pass away, but the law of God shall not be destroyed until its whole design has been accomplished" -Albert Barnes

The Law was fulfilled when the Lord Jesus said on the Cross, "It is finished," i.e. it has been completed. It was to end the OT covenant in order to "establish the second" covenant, or new covenant in Christ's blood (Heb 10:9).

To fulfill the law means "to cause God's will (as made known through His law) to be obeyed as it should (NAS Greek Lexicon). So Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and then proceeded to fulfill it multiple times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it while saying nothing in the chapter about his death. Saying that not the least part will pass away from the law until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished are two conditions that both need to be met that both refer to end times (Revelation 22) or are ways of saying that it is never going to happen because the only way to destroy instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature is by first destroying God and Christ, who is the exact image of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3).

While Jesus certainly accomplished much through the cross, there is still the second coming and all that Revelation says comes with it left to accomplish. In Titus 2:14, it describes what Jesus finished on the cross not by saying that he gave himself to destroy God's law, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law the way to believe in what he finished through the cross (Acts 21:20). In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and God's law is how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is central to the Gospel message. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts. So saying that Jesus destroyed the cross is undermining everything that he accomplished through his ministry, through the cross, and through establishing the New Covenant.

Jesus said that he

 

[WordSword]

To fulfill the law means "to cause God's will (as made known through His law) to be obeyed as it should

To fulfill the law means "to cause God's will (as made known through His law) to be obeyed as it should (NAS Greek Lexicon). So Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and then proceeded to fulfill it multiple times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it while saying nothing in the chapter about his death. Saying that not the least part will pass away from the law until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished are two conditions that both need to be met that both refer to end times (Revelation 22) or are ways of saying that it is never going to happen because the only way to destroy instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature is by first destroying God and Christ, who is the exact image of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3).

We definitely have differing understandings on this issue. God bless!

 

[Studyman]

The fact that Paul teaches that the Law is still in force is another issue.

Yes, the "FACT" is, that Paul teaches God's Law is still in force. As he says about the Laws God gave Moses, "Written for our sakes no doubt".

The argument you are promoting, that you said, "(often this argument is all too conveniently ignored by those who believe the Law is still in force)", describes why I engaged with you. But it isn't that people who believe Paul and the Scriptures, and what they teach, "Ignores" the argument you put forth. It's simply because we don't believe your argument, "because" of "The fact that Paul teaches that the Law is still in force".

Once again, my argument is ignored.

And I suggest a neutral reader will draw the obvious conclusion: while not "proof" that Jesus believes the Law came to an end at the cross, at the very least the argument shows that one cannot use Matt 5:17-18 as evidence that Jesus believes the Law will be in force till the literal end of "heaven and earth"

But certainly "the Law will be in force" until HIS Return, when, according to Him;

Matt. 13: 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

And certainly, the Law was in Force in Paul's Lifetime. And for those who believe him, the Law would also be in force in my lifetime. So is not my death, "The end of the world" for me? Am I not to, according to the Jesus "of the Bible", endure to the End? That would be the end of my life, Yes? Or do you also believe I am to keep on "enduring" even after I die?

Strawman - I never posted anything that remotely suggests that I believe that sin does not bring death even years after Christ ascended.

It's hard to actually nail down what you are preaching regarding the Holy, Just and good Laws of God.

"Surely you are not arguing that since the Law was in force before the cross - and we all agree on that - this necessarily means it has to be in force now simply because is part of "scripture that is profitable for doctrine, etc."

It looks like you are preaching the Laws of God are no longer in force "NOW"! I can only go by what you say.

How is this relevant? Surely you are not arguing that since the Law was in force before the cross - and we all agree on that - this necessarily means it has to be in force now simply because is part of "scripture that is profitable for doctrine, etc."

Using that reasoning, we would still be doing everything the Old Testament prescribes.

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

1 Cor. 9: 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Perhaps a man should study to determine what God's Law means for His Body, instead of simply rejecting it, like the mainstream preachers of Jesus and Paul's time.

People continue to post this misleading verse. The majority of translations of this verse have something like "sin is lawlessness" which entails no necessary connection to the Law of Moses.

According to the Jesus of the Bible, Moses gave us God's Laws. Therefore, to live contrary to them, would be "Lawlessness" or as Jesus says about those "many" who call HIM Lord, Lord, "In That day", who hear His Word's but didn't "DO" them, "ye that work iniquity."

I could equally well level this accusation at you - claim that you are a "religious voice" in the world whose goal is to deceive.

The mainstream preachers of this world called the Prophets and even Jesus Himself, deceivers. So yes, you could certainly do so. But it is my purpose to advocate the study of the Scriptures for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:. Not just a few verses, but as the Jesus of the Bible instructs, "EVERY Word that Proceeds from the mouth of God".

Studyman, you do this all the time - when someone posts something you do not like, you engage in a systematic smear campaign, painting them as someone who has mindlessly adopted a "worldly religion" and is out to deceive.

That is your opinion, but the argument you are promoting, is, as you said "(often this argument is all too conveniently ignored by those who believe the Law is still in force)".

No doubt you directed this comment towards me, and rightly so, as I believe God's "instruction in righteousness" is still important in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And it is the Words of the Jesus of the bible and those HE inspired, who tells me to "take heed" of "many" who come in HIS Name. I just believe Him.

This is not the right way to conduct a serious discussion and I would ask that you stop using this tactic.

It was hard for me in the beginning as well. But often times, it's the more difficult discussions that can bring about personal change.

This text refers to the commandments of God, not the Law of Moses.

I don't know who taught you this, but in the Scriptures it is written that God gave Moses His LAW, His Statutes, and HIS Commandments. The Jesus of the Bible confirms this with HIS own Words.

John 7: 19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

John 1: 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

So again, you are promoting an argument which is not believed on by those who know and believe what is written.

You are engaging in circular reasoning here, assuming the very thing you should be making a case for. There are many "commandments of God" that are clearly not part of the Law of Moses.

Can you name one?

Again with the demonization?

If you see a man with his fly open, and you tell him, he might be embarrassed, he might even get a little stung or even a little angry. But you aren't "demonizing" him by telling him, you are helping him.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes, the "FACT" is, that Paul teaches God's Law is still in force. As he says about the Laws God gave Moses, "Written for our sakes no doubt".

First, you continue to ignore my argument about Matt: 5:17-18 - this is a fact that any neutral reader will easily see. And when you systematically ignore an argument, you might as well shout from the rooftops that you have no counterargument to offer.

Second, where, precisely, does Paul say the Law is in force - book, chapter, and verse please.

He certainly is not saying it here:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

But certainly "the Law will be in force" until HIS Return, when, according to Him;

Matt. 13: 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Like many others in your camp, you attempt to use statements about people "doing iniquity", or being sinners, or even being lawless as if this is evidence that the Law of Moses is still in force.

And yet such reasoning is obviously flawed because we know from Paul that the Law is for Jews only. And if that is so, then clearly there must be "standards" other than the Law by which Gentiles, who are obviously sinners as well, are judged. Here is one text that irrefutably proves Paul believes the Law is for Jews only:

28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

This ends of the argument - no person who believes Gentiles are subject to the Law would ever write these words without having received multiple blows to the head. Do I really need to explain? Well, I will.

The "or" from verse 29 tells us what would be the case if verse 28 were false. That is how an "or" functions. If the Law had anything to do with justification then, Paul clearly says, only Jews could be justified. But we know that this is not the case - both Jews and Gentile can be justified. Therefore, as even a child can understand, only Jews are under the Law!

The question is not whether this argument is correct - it obviously is based on simple logic - the question is what strategy of avoidance, diversion, or misrepresentation will be used in response.

 

[Studyman]

First, you continue to ignore my argument about Matt: 5:17-18 - this is a fact that any neutral reader will easily see. And when you systematically ignore an argument, you might as well shout from the rooftops that you have no counterargument to offer.

You said those who believed God's Laws were still in force would ignore your argument. I said I don't ignore your argument I simply don't believe it, because they are founded on the false premise that God's Law isn't still in force. If you review what was actually said, you will find this true.

Then you said, "The fact that Paul teaches that the Law is still in force is another issue", which is silly because the very foundation of your "argument" is founded on the belief that God's Law is no longer in force. When I post Paul's words which expose this doctrine, you said, "I never posted anything that remotely suggests that I believe that sin does not bring death even years after Christ ascended."

So if "Transgression of God's Law", which is how the Holy Scriptures define "SIN", still brings death as Paul says and you acknowledged, then obviously the Laws of God are still in force.

Then I responded, "It's hard to actually nail down what you are preaching regarding the Holy, Just and good Laws of God."

And given your statement in this post, it is still unclear what your position is.

My position is clear, God's Laws are still in force, it's the manner in which HIS Laws are administered, and the manner in which transgression of God's Laws are forgiven that changed at His Coming.

We are still required to, as the Christ, the Rock of Israel who became Flesh tells us, "

EZ. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

It makes no sense to engage in an argument in which the very foundation is based on false doctrine.

Let's clear up the matter of whether God's Law is still in force or not. Then we can move to your philosophy that Jesus didn't mean what HE said in Matt. 5.

Second, where, precisely, does Paul say the Law is in force - book, chapter, and verse please.

He certainly is not saying it here:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The wages of Sin is death, at least according to the Holy Scriptures. I transgressed God's Laws, and I died. According to Scriptures, I could stay in this place to the end of my Fleshy life. OR!!!!!! I could, as Paul teaches both Jew and Gentile;

Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

If I chose the latter from the heart, the Christ, the Rock of Israel promised to forgive my sin. So then, as Paul says, I am "released from the Law" that held me in death.

Rom. 7: 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, (New man who yields himself a servant to OBEY God) and not in the oldness of the letter. (Dead in my sins)

So then, the Spirit of the Christ inspired Paul to ask the following question because HE knew religious men would use HIS Blood as justification to rebel against God's commandments and despise His judgments, just as the Pharisees used the blood of the sacrificial "works of the Priesthood Law" to justify their disobedience.

Rom. 6: 15 What then? shall we sin, (Transgress God's Laws) because we are not under the law, (dead in our sins) but under grace? (Alive to serve anew) God forbid. (That means "NO"!)

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin (Disobedience) unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

I can provide more if you want, the entire Bible teaches God's Laws are still in force. We are to "Serve God", not religions.

Like many others in your camp, you attempt to use statements about people "doing iniquity", or being sinners, or even being lawless as if this is evidence that the Law of Moses is still in force.

And yet such reasoning is obviously flawed because we know from Paul that the Law is for Jews only.

The reason Jesus warned about religious men coming in HIS Name to deceive, is because of these Doctrines that both you and I were born into. This doctrine, although popular with this world's religions, is simply untrue according to the Scriptures. The Spirit of Christ, knew this doctrine "the Law is for Jews only", was coming, and so inspired Paul to write to the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile;

1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Rom. 2: 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Not the sacrificial, ceremonial "works of the Law" for forgiveness given by Moses the Pharisees were still promoting, but God's Law showing His People how to love and Honor HIM, and how to Love each other.

And if that is so, then clearly there must be "standards" other than the Law by which Gentiles, who are obviously sinners as well, are judged. Here is one text that irrefutably proves Paul believes the Law is for Jews only:

28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

This ends of the argument - no person who believes Gentiles are subject to the Law would ever write these words without having received multiple blows to the head. Do I really need to explain? Well, I will.

The "or" from verse 29 tells us what would be the case if verse 28 were false. That is how an "or" functions. If the Law had anything to do with justification then, Paul clearly says, only Jews could be justified. But we know that this is not the case - both Jews and Gentile can be justified. Therefore, as even a child can understand, only Jews are under the Law!

The question is not whether this argument is correct - it obviously is based on simple logic - the question is what strategy of avoidance, diversion, or misrepresentation will be used in response.

I don't engage, nor do I need to engage in avoidance, diversion, or misrepresentation to expose your adopted logic. But your pride and fleshy desire to save face on a public forum will most likely cause you to ignore the simple truth about what the scriptures actually say.

But because I love you, and I was in your very shoes 25 years ago and still struggle with correction to this day and I understand how powerful religious traditions are, so I will try anyway. Hopefully you can humble yourself just a little and answer my questions.

All man have sinned, in my understanding. That means that all men have Transgressed God's Laws that Jesus walked in. I think we can agree that it is essential that these sins be removed/forgiven before we die in them.

So one question for you, is after the second time Moses went up on the mountain to get a new set of stone tablets, how did he say sins were forgiven?

Did Moses say, "If a man sins, he shall love the Lord with all his heart, and his sin is forgiven? Did he say, "if a man sins, he shall keep God's Sabbath Holy, and his sins are forgiven? Or did he say, "if a man sins, he shall take a goat to the Levite Priest, and kill it, and the Priest would perform ceremonial "works" to provide for the forgiveness of sins"?

It is written that the Pharisees rejected God's Commandments, despised His Judgments and polluted His Sabbaths.

But were they still selling goats and animals for Sacrifices according to the Levitical Priesthood for justification? And why were they still promoting these sacrificial, ceremonial "works of the Law" for forgiveness. Was it not because they didn't believe Jesus was the Prophesied Messiah? And didn't Jesus say this was because they didn't believe Moses?

Isn't Paul telling the Romans and Galatians that Justification comes from "Faith", not the blood of animals as prescribed by the Levitical Priesthood that the Pharisees were still promoting? And isn't "Yielding myself" a servant to Obey God, what "Faith" actually is?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

So I agree with Paul 100%. I know who he was addressing, and that man is not justified by the old temporary Levitical Priesthood the Pharisees were still promoting, in which men engaged in sacrificial ceremonial "works of the Law" for remission of sins. It was the Blood of the Lamb of God all along, that these sacrifices foreshadowed.

To believe you, I would have to believe that the Pharisees were trying to persuade the new converts to Love the Lord their God with all their hearts, and to Love their neighbors as themselves, and that in this way they could be justified.

That isn't the truth of Scriptures.

 

[expos4ever]

You said those who believed God's Laws were still in force would ignore your argument. I said I don't ignore your argument I simply don't believe it, because they are founded on the false premise that God's Law isn't still in force. If you review what was actually said, you will find this true.

Let's be clear about something: You say the Law remains in force, I say it doesn't. Each of us has to make a case - a scripturally-based argument supporting our respective positions. I have made many many arguments to this effect. And you have made arguments from your position. Let's discuss our respective arguments.

Then you said, "The fact that Paul teaches that the Law is still in force is another issue", which is silly because the very foundation of your "argument" is founded on the belief that God's Law is no longer in force.

Let me ask you a simple question: do you agree that neither of us gets to make a claim and not be required to defend it based on scripture?

In a number of threads, I have repeatedly made an actual case, grounded in scripture, that the Law is no longer in effect. By all means, feel free to critique those arguments. But the way you express yourself here makes it seem that you think that it is a self-evident truth that the Law remains in effect. Maybe that is not what you are saying, but it sounds like it.

When I post Paul's words which expose this doctrine, you said, "I never posted anything that remotely suggests that I believe that sin does not bring death even years after Christ ascended."

Well, you clearly misrepresented me - I never said anything that remotely suggests that I believe that sin does not bring death even years after Christ ascended.

But prove me wrong - show me actual words of mine that express such a view, or logically imply it. And remember, you need to make your case based on the content of my argument - not on what you believe. In other words, you need to show that the things I believe, and have been arguing for, put me in the position of saying that sin does not bring death even years after Christ ascended.

So if "Transgression of God's Law", which is how the Holy Scriptures define "SIN", still brings death as Paul says and you acknowledged, then obviously the Laws of God are still in force.

As I have pointed out, it is a fact that most English translations, at least according to Biblegateway, do not translate 1 John 3:4 as "sin is transgression of God's Law"; instead, they have something like "sin is lawlessness". And "lawlessness" is a general term - it has no necessary specificity to the Law of Moses. For example, if I break Canadian law, I (a Canadian) am being "lawless".

Furthermore, among the translations that do not have "sin is transgression of the law" are the highly respected NASB and the Young's Literal Translation.

 

[expos4ever]

To fulfill the law means "to cause God's will (as made known through His law) to be obeyed as it should (NAS Greek Lexicon).

I don't believe you. Please make a (non-circular, of course) argument that we are obliged to interpret the notion of "fulfilling the Law" in this very specific sense.

So Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and then proceeded to fulfill it multiple times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it while saying nothing in the chapter about his death.

Did Jesus instruct others to follow the Law? Yes He did. But, this behaviour can be reconciled with the view that the Law comes to and at the cross.

Now then, did Jesus not say that "nothing that goes into a man defiles him"? That is completely at odds with the Law of Moses that declares that plenty of things defile. People in your camp will say He was talking about handwashing. Well, that is a desperate, contrived, and clearly unworkable argument. But I am happy to revisit this with you if you wish.

Jesus also touched "unclean" people and forgave a woman caught in adultery - both in contravention of the Law.

 

[Studyman]

Let's be clear about something: You say the Law remains in force, I say it doesn't.

No, if we are going to be clear, then we must be honest. Paul says transgression of God's LAW still brings death. And Paul says; Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

I just believe him.

Each of us has to make a case - a scripturally-based argument supporting our respective positions. I have made many many arguments to this effect. And you have made arguments from your position. Let's discuss our respective arguments.

Let me ask you a simple question: do you agree that neither of us gets to make a claim and not be required to defend it based on scripture?

The Scriptures can be used selectively to defend or promote any religion or religious philosophy. The Pharisees used "some" of God's Word to defend their "claims". The serpent in the garden used "some" of God's Word to promote its "claim".

satan knows the scriptures very well. How Jesus responded to the temptations of HIS Time was to consider "EVERY" Word of God. In your claim "God's Law is no longer in force", you must ignore, reject and omit the entire Law and Prophets that Paul said was written specifically for the Body of Christ, under God's New Priesthood.

Jesus Himself said "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

For me, the Scriptures are not to be used to promote one religious philosophy of this world over another, but are to be used for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Clearly God's Law is still in force, if not, there would be no need for Paul's Teaching.

In a number of threads, I have repeatedly made an actual case, grounded in scripture, that the Law is no longer in effect.

Yes, you made "your" case. But the reason why there is contention between us, is because to make your case, you must omit so much of what God actually says and inspires. And this to defend and promote your particular religious sect of franchise. So your "case" would change depending on the religious sect you have adopted. I'm pointing out that according to Paul, the Scriptures are not to be used selectively to promote this religion or that, rather they are to used for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

Why???? Because the Christ, the Rock of Israel, said so. And I believe HIM.

Is. 1: 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

And this same Christ says the same thing as a man in the person of Jesus.

Matt. 19: 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

The serpent doesn't teach this. "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

The Pharisees didn't teach this. "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

And you don't teach this. "the Law is no longer in effect."

But Paul does. "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."

Your "case" is against the Holy scriptures, not me.

By all means, feel free to critique those arguments. But the way you express yourself here makes it seem that you think that it is a self-evident truth that the Law remains in effect. Maybe that is not what you are saying, but it sounds like it.

Well, you clearly misrepresented me - I never said anything that remotely suggests that I believe that sin does not bring death even years after Christ ascended.

But prove me wrong - show me actual words of mine that express such a view, or logically imply it. And remember, you need to make your case based on the content of my argument - not on what you believe. In other words, you need to show that the things I believe, and have been arguing for, put me in the position of saying that sin does not bring death even years after Christ ascended.

"Let's be clear about something: You say the Law remains in force, I say it doesn't."

As I have pointed out, it is a fact that most English translations, at least according to Biblegateway, do not translate 1 John 3:4 as "sin is transgression of God's Law"; instead, they have something like "sin is lawlessness". And "lawlessness" is a general term - it has no necessary specificity to the Law of Moses. For example, if I break Canadian law, I (a Canadian) am being "lawless".

Paul answers this question for you.

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

So yes, if you "Yielded yourself" a servant to Canadian Government, and you rebelled against it, you would be considered "Lawless" by the governing power you "yielded yourself" to.

That's Paul's point. If you "yielded yourself" to the Jews religion of Paul's Time, and you didn't wash your hands a certain way before you ate, you would be considered a "Sinner" by the governing authority you humbled yourself to.

Paul advocates "yielding oneself" servants to obey God, like Jesus and all the examples of Faith in the Bible did. As opposed to the religions of the world God placed us in.

Furthermore, among the translations that do not have "sin is transgression of the law" are the highly respected NASB and the Young's Literal Translation.

LOL, well since you have been convinced and are preaching to others that "God's Law is no longer in force", then it doesn't really matter if men reject them, does it? Then they can be like Eve, and create their own Law, to go along with their own high days, their own sabbaths, their own judgment of clean and holy and their own commandments and their own image of God.

For me, I'm pretty sure the Bible teaches that disobedience to God is Sin. And that is why Paul says to "Yield ourselves" servants to obey God so as to become "Servants of His Righteousness", and not our own as the establishment religion did in Paul's Time.

 

[expos4ever]

No, if we are going to be clear, then we must be honest. Paul says transgression of God's LAW still brings death.

Where does he say this?