• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
36,572
4,904
On the bus to Heaven
✟132,648.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think Martin Luther and a few others did that. All churches have some moniker, the EO is one such name which also covers, among others, ancient churches with the names Church of Antioch, Church of Alexandria, Church of Jerusalem, etc. Simi;larly the Churtch of Rome became known as the Cathilc Church. The eruption of new denomiantions began occuring when they protested against and split from the CC.

Yes, of course.

Whoever "we" are. As I've mentioned the "we" that includes non-Catholics here who hold to Sola Scripura aren't agreeing on what the faith is on a very basic point!

I didn't bring up orthodoxy but at the same time I didn't need to because, of course, everyone here has been arguing about the orthodoxy, the truth, of one belief vs another pertaining to the law. As for belittling? I simply stated a truth, one that you should agree with and most likely applaud while I think less of it.
I’m going to leave this conversation with this warning for you. If Christ came to earth today your church would not allow Him to have communion or to teach because if the arrogance. Think about that one for a bit. Bye
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
16,363
4,107
✟402,071.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I’m going to leave this conversation with this warning for you. If Christ came to earth today your church would not allow Him to have communion or to teach because if the arrogance. Think about that one for a bit. Bye
K. Duly warned. Bye-bye.

And, BTW, The Catholic Church claiming to have authority in understanding the faith is no different in the slightest from you or anyone else here claiming to know the truth with your particular understanding of revelation, and perhaps dividing over it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Abraham1st

Active Member
Oct 1, 2025
196
11
53
bolton
✟9,823.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
K. Duly warned. Bye-bye.

And, BTW, The Catholic Church claiming to have authority in understanding the faith is no different in the slightest from you or anyone else here claiming to know the truth with your particular understanding of revelation, and perhaps dividing over it.
he knows your opinion on the Catholic church, no need to slap him going out the door, and besides does the Lord not know those that are His, so if we have a hope we are doing well, and also we can give others hope too. ( not hopelessness which is the same evil for evil.) as im sure you know all this
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
16,363
4,107
✟402,071.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
he knows your opinion on the Catholic church, no need to slap him going out the door, and besides does the Lord not know those that are His, so if we have a hope we are doing well, and also we can give others hope too. ( not hopelessness which is the same evil for evil.) as im sure you know all this
It wasn't a slap or meant to be. It was a simple statement of truth. He's been denouncing the CC as arrogant for suggesting that it has the right take on the faith, but so has everyone else here, done the same.
 
Upvote 0

Abraham1st

Active Member
Oct 1, 2025
196
11
53
bolton
✟9,823.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It wasn't a slap or meant to be. It was a simple statement of truth. He's been denouncing the CC as arrogant for suggesting that it has the right take on the faith, but so has everyone else here, done the same.
you cant battle over different sects either. Love the people wherever they are, not what they are with.


1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
16,363
4,107
✟402,071.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
you cant battle over different sects either. Love the people wherever they are, not what they are with.


1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Okay so I'll translate. You don't debate and you don't battle, Even to defend the faith as you know it, and anyone who disagrees with you is contentious.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0

Mercy Shown

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2019
838
240
65
Boonsboro
✟96,057.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, "then ye shall" be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Where is the "LAW" requiring a man who transgressed God's Voice, to bring a goat to the Levite Priest and kill it.




Exactly, the 10 Commandments wasn't "ADDED" because Israel sinned, just as the Law not to eat of a certain tree wasn't "ADDED" because Adam and Eve sinned. Just as the Law concerning murder was not "ADDED" because Cain sinned.

But the Law the Pharisees were still promoting for the remission of Sins, from the time Jesus cast them out of the Temple, to the time of Paul and their bewitching of the Galatians, wasn't "ADDED" until after the Golden Calf, the great transgression.


Again, because of your preconceived idea that God's Laws defining sin, cannot be separated from a Temporary Law ADDED "BECAUSE" of Sins, you promote this philosophy.

And you are free to do so, as this is the foundation of "Many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord, as Jesus also warns.



The "LAW" that commanded a man that sinned, must take a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it for the remission of his sin, was most certainly "created by God" on Mt. Sinai, and "ADDED" to God's Law defining sin, righteousness, holiness, after Moses went up to God the 2nd time.

This popular religious philosophy that promotes the foolishness that God's Law about Loving Him and Loving others, and His definition of what these Laws mean, was only "ADDED" until Jesus came, is absurd. But the Law ADDED "because of sin", requiring a man to kill a goat, "until the Lamb of God should come", is confirmed all over the Scriptures.



I disagree with this Philosophy based on what is actually written in Scriptures. There was a temporary "LAW" ADDED "because of transgressions" that was to lead sinners to Christ for the remission of their Sins.

Zacharias was Led to this Christ and understood this before Jesus was even born.

Yes, Paul is speaking about a "LAW" that the Pharisees were still promoting, that was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham.



To believe this preconceived idea, I would have to believe that mortal humans existed before God "ADDED" them to planet earth. That "Whales existed, before God "ADDED" them to the earth. That is absurd.

There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible which would support such a philosophy. And yet, it is your belief. Isn't God the Creator? Or are you teaching that some other god creates stuff so my God can "ADD" them as He chooses?




That is your "preconceived idea". There is nothing in Scriptures that support this idea, unless a person takes a few verses, separates them from the rest of the Bible, inject their own ideas in the Scripture.

Jer. 7: 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 "But this thing commanded I them", saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

Why would the Spirit of Christ place these words in Jeremiah's mouth if they were not true? What were the people commanded to "OBEY"?

And there certainly was a "Commandment" of God" "concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices" for Sin. I posted them, but you don't want to examine and discuss them.

You tell me, "When was the "LAW" concerning sacrifices for Sin "ADDED" then"?

But the obvious answer to these questions, expose problems with the preconceived ideas you have adopted and are promoting. Don't you want further God's Truth, and not man-made "preconceived ideas"?


Yes, as it is written about Isaac;

Gen. 26: 4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

So it wasn't any of God's Laws, Commandments and Statutes Abraham was given, that was "ADDED" because of sins.




Yes, but Paul is talking about a LAW that was "ADDED", so yes, the LAW the Pharisees were promoting to the Galatians, was "ADDED" to God eternal Law defining Holiness, Clean, Righteousness that Abraham obeyed and taught to his children and household after him.

I agree.



Yes, this is the opposite of what you were preaching when this discussion started. You said the entire Law given by God to Moses, wasn't "ADDED" until Sinai. Of course God's Law existed, that is what the "LAW" Paul is speaking to was "ADDED" too? Another question I asked you, but you refused to answer.



And there was Judgment before Moses. Cain, the world in Noah's Time, Sodom and Gomorrah. But still, there was no "Command of God" concerning burnt offering and sacrifices for sin. At least no according to the Bible.



That is true. God's Law is perfect and the very definition of "moral". What is Clean, what is Holy, what is Good, what is Righteous. These Laws of God were shown to Cain, the world of Noah's Time, Abraham and Sodom, etc.

What was "ADDED" was not God's instruction in righteousness. But a "LAW" that was "ADDED" because of "transgression" of
God's Righteousness.



"There’s no need to rely on complex religious philosophies — the Bible speaks plainly when read in context".

The written covenant with Israel was posted for your review and discussion, and you refused to engage either one. And it is quite simple.

Here is the Covenant that was ratified in Blood.

Ex. 19: 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. 7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. 8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

Exactly as Jeremiah 7: 22,23 declared. But the People broke the Covenant, and Moses had to go back up to God the 2nd Time. This is when the "LAW" concerning sacrifices and offerings for sin was "ADDED".



This represents your own preconceived ideas, confirmed by your own statements, that God's Law "added" because of Sin, cannot be separated from God's Law defining Sin.



Which is my point from the very beginning. But the "LAW" requiring a man who sinned, to bring a goat to a Levite Priest and killing it, for remission of sins, didn't exist until after the Golden Calf. As the Spirit is Jeremiah tries to tell men but they won't abandon their preconceived ideas.



Your post is not making any sense. You claim a LAW defining sin already existed since Cain and Able, and I agree. But you say out of the other side of your mouth, that this LAW was "ADDED" on Mt. Sinai. Here is the Sinai Covenant, which is the same Covenant God made with Abraham. You can read it yourself from your own Bible in Gen. 17.

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, "then ye shall" be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Where is the "LAW" requiring a man who transgressed God's Voice, to bring a goat to the Levite Priest and kill it.




Exactly, the 10 Commandments wasn't "ADDED" because Israel sinned, just as the Law not to eat of a certain tree wasn't "ADDED" because Adam and Eve sinned. Just as the Law concerning murder was not "ADDED" because Cain sinned.

But the Law the Pharisees were still promoting for the remission of Sins, from the time Jesus cast them out of the Temple, to the time of Paul and their bewitching of the Galatians, wasn't "ADDED" until after the Golden Calf, the great transgression.


Again, because of your preconceived idea that God's Laws defining sin, cannot be separated from a Temporary Law ADDED "BECAUSE" of Sins, you promote this philosophy.

And you are free to do so, as this is the foundation of "Many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord, as Jesus also warns.



The "LAW" that commanded a man that sinned, must take a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it for the remission of his sin, was most certainly "created by God" on Mt. Sinai, and "ADDED" to God's Law defining sin, righteousness, holiness, after Moses went up to God the 2nd time.

This popular religious philosophy that promotes the foolishness that God's Law about Loving Him and Loving others, and His definition of what these Laws mean, was only "ADDED" until Jesus came, is absurd. But the Law ADDED "because of sin", requiring a man to kill a goat, "until the Lamb of God should come", is confirmed all over the Scriptures.



I disagree with this Philosophy based on what is actually written in Scriptures. There was a temporary "LAW" ADDED "because of transgressions" that was to lead sinners to Christ for the remission of their Sins.

Zacharias was Led to this Christ and understood this before Jesus was even born.
Everyone has the right to be wrong. You are simply recycling your old arguments for the umpteenth time, and this thread has lost its original thrust, and that is the history of the two laws theory, which works-oriented people use to get around what Paul teaches. Some do it out of fear that they will be lost, while others do it to have some control and credit for their salvation. But anyone "keeping the law" because they have to is living in sin. Because sin in the mind is sin before God. The fact that they are compelled to keep the law or lose a reward is the wrong motive for doing the works of God.

What sins would you take up and start practicing if you knew that you were guaranteed to be saved regardless? Do you know whether or not you are saved at this very moment?
 
Upvote 0

Abraham1st

Active Member
Oct 1, 2025
196
11
53
bolton
✟9,823.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Okay so I'll translate. You don't debate and you don't battle, Even to defend the faith as you know it, and anyone who disagrees with you is contentious.
read what my new thread says, if it needs translation, then translate.
 
Upvote 0

Studyman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,576
710
66
Michigan
✟501,533.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Everyone has the right to be wrong. You are simply recycling your old arguments for the umpteenth time, and this thread has lost its original thrust, and that is the history of the two laws theory, which works-oriented people use to get around what Paul teaches. Some do it out of fear that they will be lost, while others do it to have some control and credit for their salvation. But anyone "keeping the law" because they have to is living in sin. Because sin in the mind is sin before God. The fact that they are compelled to keep the law or lose a reward is the wrong motive for doing the works of God.

It was only a matter of time before you directed the conversation away from what is actually written in scriptures, and try to make it personal about me. Nevertheless, the teaching that God commanded Abraham to offer his son to God for Abraham's Sins, is absurd, and not Biblical. Yet, it is what you are promoting. And the Philosophy that there is no difference between God's "LAW" that defines Sin, from the old Priesthood Law ADDED "because of Sin", is absurd as well. Nevertheless, this world's internet and "many" who come in Christ's Name, promote it anyway.

But you are right about one thing, you are free to do so


What sins would you take up and start practicing if you knew that you were guaranteed to be saved regardless? Do you know whether or not you are saved at this very moment?

I find this fascinating. I have asked you many questions since you first replied to me with an internet sermon you copied and pasted, to promote a popular religious philosophy. I have asked questions kindly, even saying, "please answer my questions". And yet you refused to answer them, or even acknowledge them.

And yet here you are, asking me questions, with every expectation that I should answer. At some point, a man should in my view, consider their own works, look in the mirror, exhibit some humility etc..

Nevertheless, it is wicked to return evil with evil, therefore I will answer your questions, even though you refused to answer mine..

What sins would you take up and start practicing if you knew that you were guaranteed to be saved regardless?

I would not "take up and start practicing a sin", even if another voice in the garden God placed me in, who professed to know God, told me "You shall surely not die".

Do you know whether or not you are saved at this very moment?

I labor, in Hope that I may be accepted of God, if my life ended today, at this very moment. I am diligent that I may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless at His Return, in the Hope that I will be raised from the dead, and given eternal Life with God, even if I did at this very moment.

I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, and offer my body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is only my reasonable service. And this that I may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God, in HOPE that my Savior with advocate on my behalf, "In That Day".

After all, as it is written:

2 Cor. 5:10 For we "must all appear" before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that "he hath done", whether it be good or bad.
 
Upvote 0

Mercy Shown

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2019
838
240
65
Boonsboro
✟96,057.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I find this fascinating. I have asked you many questions since you first replied to me with an internet sermon you copied and pasted, to promote a popular religious philosophy. I have asked questions kindly, even saying, "please answer my questions". And yet you refused to answer them, or even acknowledge them.
I did not copy and paste a sermon at all. I only posted my study notes. You have no valid rebuttals.
 
Upvote 0

Mercy Shown

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2019
838
240
65
Boonsboro
✟96,057.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And yet here you are, asking me questions, with every expectation that I should answer. At some point, a man should in my view, consider their own works, look in the mirror, exhibit some humility etc..
Oh, I did not expect a response even. Most leaglists tell everyone what they should abserve but never cut into the pie. The say things like "Keep the sabbath" and they place great importance upon doing so. Some even to the point of making it salvific but they do not spend new york minute explainig how it should be kept. Broad platitudes is their language.

The gosple is beautiful and it certianly is good news for everyone.
 
Upvote 0

Mercy Shown

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2019
838
240
65
Boonsboro
✟96,057.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would not "take up and start practicing a sin", even if another voice in the garden God placed me in, who professed to know God, told me "You shall surely not die".
Why not?
 
Upvote 0