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

[Hentenza]

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

 

[fhansen]

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.

 

[Abraham1st]

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

 

[fhansen]

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.

 

[Abraham1st]

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?

 

[fhansen]

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.

 

[Mercy Shown]

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?

 

[Abraham1st]

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.

 

[Studyman]

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.

 

[Mercy Shown]

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.

 

[Mercy Shown]

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.

 

[Mercy Shown]

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?

 

[Mercy Shown]

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.

And you do not feel that the way you address people that disagree with you is not a sin?

 

[Studyman]

I did not copy and paste a sermon at all. I only posted my study notes. You have no valid rebuttals.

I assumed by the content and format that you used AI in your response. If I assumed incorrectly, my apologies. Here, let me correct my post.

"I find this fascinating. I have asked you many questions since you first replied to me, 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."

 

[Mercy Shown]

I assumed by the content and format that you used AI in your response. If I assumed incorrectly, my apologies. Here, let me correct my post.

"I find this fascinating. I have asked you many questions since you first replied to me, 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 am not sure what the problem is. To the best of my knowledge I have done so. I notice that this is a common complaint of yours to those who debate with you. Prhaps your questions get lost in your phrasing of them. Many times you questions read like rhetorical insults. They read like a form of persuasion that uses personal attacks or ridicule to undermine an opponent, rather than addressing the substance of their argument. Also questions buried in a blitz of text fail to frame up properly. If you post a clear quetion or two, I'd be more than happy to answer it.

 

[Studyman]

Oh, I did not expect a response even.

That's fascinating. The mainstream preachers of Jesus time also asked Him questions, but not for the purpose of Him answering them from the heart in search of Biblical Truth. Answering questions asked, is in my view, is one of the most common of decencies and courtesies men can extend to one another. When I asked you questions, I wanted you to answer them for the purpose of understanding our differences. I wasn't aware that your intent in asking questions, wasn't for the purpose of receiving an answer.

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.

While it is true that God did show people what HE defined and created as Holy, clean, righteous, good and just. And HE did say things like, "Keep the Sabbath". And HE most certainly did place a great importance upon doing so. But calling HIM a "Legalist" or those who have "Yielded themselves" to Him, as Paul teaches a "legalist", that doesn't seem like a Godly thing to say or even consider.

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.

In my study of the Holy Scriptures, God set about in great detail explaining how to "Keep the Sabbath". I'm not sure where you are getting your information. I would suggest "Seeking the Righteousness of God", which is instruction I received from the Jesus "of the Bible". I'm sure if you want to know, you will find that God gives instructions concerning how to "keep His Commandments", in great detail.

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

Truly the Gospel of the Christ "of the Bible" is beautiful and is good news for men who hunger and thirst for God's Righteousness.

However, there is nothing in the Gospel that teaches God Commanded Abraham to kill his only son, to atone for Abraham's sins. This may be part of a gospel, but not the gospel of Christ.

 

[Studyman]

Why not?

Why would I not "take up and start practicing a sin"? Gosh, what a question. God is my Father who I Love with all my heart, body and soul, and I want to be a Faithful son, like Jesus was a Faithful Son, and Abraham, and David, and Shadrack, and Cornelius, and all of the Faithful examples in the Bible "whose refuge is the Lord". In my studies, I have found that to be a faithful son I should "Humble myself in obedience to God", like all the examples of Faithful men in the Bible did.

In this way, I would honor God with something more than my lips. an honor that is unacceptable to God, or any father in my life's experience. Even a human father expects honor and respect from his sons with something more than their lips.

The God and Father of all is a Great God, Yes? Is HE not worthy of honor and obedience? Why would a faithful son ""take up and start practicing" a work, or behavior that his father has already forbid him to engage in?

Unless he doesn't really love his father.

 

[Studyman]

And you do not feel that the way you address people that disagree with you is not a sin?

Asking questions about specific religious philosophies and posting scriptures for review and examination isn't a sin, in my understanding.

 

[Studyman]

I am not sure what the problem is. To the best of my knowledge I have done so. I notice that this is a common complaint of yours to those who debate with you. Prhaps your questions get lost in your phrasing of them. Many times you questions read like rhetorical insults. They read like a form of persuasion that uses personal attacks or ridicule to undermine an opponent, rather than addressing the substance of their argument. Also questions buried in a blitz of text fail to frame up properly. If you post a clear quetion or two, I'd be more than happy to answer it.

Yes, I'm sure it must be me.

So long MS.

 

[Mercy Shown]

That's fascinating. The mainstream preachers of Jesus time also asked Him questions, but not for the purpose of Him answering them from the heart in search of Biblical Truth. Answering questions asked, is in my view, is one of the most common of decencies and courtesies men can extend to one another. When I asked you questions, I wanted you to answer them for the purpose of understanding our differences. I wasn't aware that your intent in asking questions, wasn't for the purpose of receiving an answer.

Here, again you spend all your time composing an answer that merely accuses me of ulterior motives. Why do you do this?