Gal 4 condemns all Pagan days Rom 14 defends all Bible holy days
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,277
- 10,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
The Old Covenant is "obey and live" as Galatians 3 points out.
Romans 3:19-21 points out that all the world today is still lost under that same rule. Only in the Gospel - the NEW Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33 in the OLD Testament are we released from the Old Covenant.
In the NEW Covenant that LAW known to Jeremiah and his readers as the moral law of God - that defines what sin is -- is written on the heart and mind.
Romans 14 is not even remotely dealing with contrast of O.C vs N.C because in Rom 14 BOTH sides are being defended and affirmed.
BOTH the one that eats vegetables only - and the one who eats meat.
BOTH the one who "observes one day above another and the one who observes every day".
Has nothing to do with the Old Covenant.
Upvote
0
Sheep dog
Active Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 301
- 253
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Private
True about the old covenant. Not true about the new covenant.
True the world is lost without God. Not true that subjects one to it for salvation. Read the rest of Romans.
You're mixing laws. Indeed it is moral to refrain from actions against others as the law points out. Those laws aren't the law from the beginning as Romans and Galatians both point out. I'd quote the verses which are posted all over this section of the forum except you disregard them as proven here.
No
So you don't observe a day. Isn't the evidence I read here. So to say this isn't talking about the sabbath is incorrect.
Why are you putting us on as fools?
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,277
- 10,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
The Old Covenant is "obey and live" as Galatians 3 points out.
Romans 3:19-21 points out that all the world today is still lost under that same rule. Only in the Gospel - the NEW Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33 in the OLD Testament are we released from the Old Covenant.
In the NEW Covenant that LAW known to Jeremiah and his readers as the moral law of God - that defines what sin is -- is written on the heart and mind.
Romans 14 is not even remotely dealing with contrast of O.C vs N.C because in Rom 14 BOTH sides are being defended and affirmed.
BOTH the one that eats vegetables only - and the one who eats meat.
BOTH the one who "observes one day above another and the one who observes every day".
Has nothing to do with the Old Covenant.
Agreed that the Jer 31:31-33 "New Covenant " is not "Obey and Live" the way we have it in the Old Covenant. But the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 takes that same LAW and "Writes it in the heart and mind" when you read that text you will see it.
I admire your optimism.
Paul is not "Mixing laws" in Romans 3
In Romans 3:19-20 Paul explains his meaning for that phrase -- yet so many believers simply ignore it because it does not fit their preference/traditions.
Let the Bible speak instead of man-made-traditions that are directed against the commandments of God.
Rom 3
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
...
23 "ALL have sinned"
31" Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW
1. The term "under the Law" does NOT apply to "just Jews" but rather "every mouth" and "all the world" -- STILL to this very day
2. The purpose is to show that ALL are sinners. STILL to this very day.
3. The LAW defines what SIN IS -- STILL to this very day. Even as Paul was writing .. still the case.
4. No one can use the LAW as "the Savior" - the only "solution" to the problem is the Gospel and it does not matter if you are Jew or Gentile - you are a sinner and you need the savior.
5. Faith does not delete/make-void/ that LAW, rather it ESTABLISHES it. That LAW
By definition "SIN IS Transgression of the LAW" 1 Jon 3:4 -- even in the NT -- STILL
And of course under the GOSPEL solution of the NEW Covenant - that LAW is written on the heart Jeremiah 31:31-33 not just in the OT but also in the NT -- unchanged -- Hebrews 8:6-12.
Therefore EVEN for Christians - under the NEW Covenant it would STILL be a sin to "take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
Romans 7 quotes from that Law -- and so does Romans 13 ... in both cases "The Ten Commandments"
Romans 13 quotes from the same list after the cross - that Christ quotes from before the cross - in Matthew 19 saying "Keep the Commandments"
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sheep dog
Active Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 301
- 253
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Private
What does Galatians 3 have to do with Lk 22:20? I read it to ask why are you returning to the law.
This doesn't make sense. You said we're released from the Old Covenant. Why do you require adherence to it?
Verses 31 and 32 disallow for your opinion here.
Really? Then why is it you require adherence to the 4th commandment? Those commandments are the covenant as Moses says in Deut 4:13.
Sorry, not as I explained above with verses 31 and 32.
Thanks
All the world was never under the covenant given to Israel. Your verse does say the world is condemned by it though. Verse 20 says the law has nothing to do with redemption.
This in no way enforces the old covenant over the new covenant.
Where do you get the world was given the law and subject to it? Your verses provide no solution to the problem of sin and salvation.
Swell
Swell
Then the law can't take salvation away as you imply.
Faith in Jesus doesn't require keeping the law. Jn 10.
you already said that. The verse doesn't say sin is only violation of the law.
The law provides no solution to anything. That covenant law wasn't moved, it was and remains replaced.
No this implies law keeping is required denying the work of redemption through Jesus. Jesus said very plainly you will go through Hi or not get in. Jesus no where said you will also keep the law to get in. Jn 5:24 says nothing about the law to have eternal life. Neh 10:29 says following the law is a curse.
Yes it does. It also says: But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
This is an abuse of Mat 19. The OT says no one keeps the law more than once.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,277
- 10,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
The Old Covenant is "obey and live" as Galatians 3 points out.
Romans 3:19-21 points out that all the world today is still lost under that same rule. Only in the Gospel - the NEW Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33 in the OLD Testament are we released from the Old Covenant.
In the NEW Covenant that LAW known to Jeremiah and his readers as the moral law of God - that defines what sin is -- is written on the heart and mind.
Romans 14 is not even remotely dealing with contrast of O.C vs N.C because in Rom 14 BOTH sides are being defended and affirmed.
BOTH the one that eats vegetables only - and the one who eats meat.
BOTH the one who "observes one day above another and the one who observes every day".
Has nothing to do with the Old Covenant.
Agreed that the Jer 31:31-33 "New Covenant " is not "Obey and Live" the way we have it in the Old Covenant. But the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 takes that same LAW and "Writes it in the heart and mind" when you read that text you will see it.
I admire your optimism.
Paul is not "Mixing laws" in Romans 3
In Romans 3:19-20 Paul explains his meaning for that phrase -- yet so many believers simply ignore it because it does not fit their preference/traditions.
Let the Bible speak instead of man-made-traditions that are directed against the commandments of God.
Rom 3
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
...
23 "ALL have sinned"
31" Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW
1. The term "under the Law" does NOT apply to "just Jews" but rather "every mouth" and "all the world" -- STILL to this very day
2. The purpose is to show that ALL are sinners. STILL to this very day.
3. The LAW defines what SIN IS -- STILL to this very day. Even as Paul was writing .. still the case.
4. No one can use the LAW as "the Savior" - the only "solution" to the problem is the Gospel and it does not matter if you are Jew or Gentile - you are a sinner and you need the savior.
5. Faith does not delete/make-void/ that LAW, rather it ESTABLISHES it. That LAW
By definition "SIN IS Transgression of the LAW" 1 Jon 3:4 -- even in the NT -- STILL
And of course under the GOSPEL solution of the NEW Covenant - that LAW is written on the heart Jeremiah 31:31-33 not just in the OT but also in the NT -- unchanged -- Hebrews 8:6-12.
Therefore EVEN for Christians - under the NEW Covenant it would STILL be a sin to "take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
Romans 7 quotes from that Law -- and so does Romans 13 ... in both cases "The Ten Commandments"
Romans 13 quotes from the same list after the cross - that Christ quotes from before the cross - in Matthew 19 saying "Keep the Commandments"
You don't have a single quote from me asking that the saints be under the Old Covenant - which as Gal 3 points out -- all the lost are under still to this very day. Romans 3:19-20 points out that same fact.
Did you think that "Do not take God's name in vain" is a "return to the Old Covenant"??
Upvote
0
Sheep dog
Active Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 301
- 253
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Private
Why are you repeating yourself on this without comment on what I posted? I've read Galatians several times and chapter 3 asks why one is foolish and returns to the law.
More c&p from a previous post adding nothing new like I said nothing.
I've noticed you've said this frequently. Jer 31:32 won't allow for this opinion.
Both sides of what? I assume you mean performance of law and grce being the 2 sides. One cancels the other. There aren't 2 ways to God (be saved). Paul doesn't defend the law. Paul says more less to disregard the law.
What are you talking about here as if I didn't know? It's been said Rom 14 doesn't talk about the sabbath. I personally don't understand why you holler about it so much. It should be very obvious you're talking about the sabbath.
Why are you saying this? The sabbath was given only to Israel and isn't mentioned before the departure from Egypt. The 4th commandment is part of the covenant given to Israel. There's really no need to provide the Scripture for this. It's been quoted and referenced to you many times by several people. You only ignore it. This is read you don't believe Moses.
Is this in your Bible: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
What covenant did they break? Is there another covenant made with Israel besides the one Moses talks about in Deut 4:13? Please provide Scripture.
Thanks.
Where did I say he was? Please quote.
OK since you imply the world is under the law, where does your quote say the world is under the law?
No problem with this.
What is your point here? You're bringing in another partial verse foreign to Paul's point from another author.
I agree here. The disagreement with you is your promotion of the idea keeping the law is required for and to maintain salvation. There's no biblical support for such a view.
Faith acknowledges the law exists. It in no way requires the law in relation to salvation as you claim. The same Paul says we're delivered from the law. That claim isn't about some aspect of the law. Examine even the chapter for your self.
You're never going to accept what this complete verse says.
Again the law given to Israel at Sinai isn't the law written on the heart. If it was Hebrews 10 is false. Do you need the word false explained to you?
This is being reliant on legalism to enforce the law. If a person truly loves something or someone they don't take their name in vain.
Is your point that is a command to keep the law? It isn't supportable from the text.
Your implication here makes the OT and Jn 10 false.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,277
- 10,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Fine.
Then attention to detail is what would be helpful starting with the term "under the law" as it is defined by Paul -- we should not reject his meaning for it ... and "insert our own".
Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:23 "ALL have sinned"
1 John 3:4 "sin IS transgression of the LAW"
Romans 3:19-21 points out that all the world today is still lost under that same rule. Only in the Gospel - the NEW Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33 in the OLD Testament are we released from the Old Covenant.
It is irrefutable.
Gal 4
Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons
The "child" is the lost person who being "under the law" is "under a tutor" one who directs them to Christ by first showing that they have a problem and that they cannot solve it -- only Christ can solve it.
Gal 3
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
I find your logic "illusive" at that point.
What exactly is there "not to get" here?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,277
- 10,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Romans 3:19-21 points out that all the world today is still lost under that same rule. Only in the Gospel - the NEW Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33 in the OLD Testament are we released from the Old Covenant.
It is irrefutable.
So then you have an answer for that irrefutable point or not??
Or are you simply saying that the irrefutable point I made - has already been made before and you still have nothing to respond ??
Your post leaves it a but unclear.
It is irrefutable.
So then you have an answer for that irrefutable point or not??
Or are you simply saying that the irrefutable point I made - has already been made before and you still have nothing to respond ??
Your post leaves it a but unclear.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,277
- 10,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
In the NEW Covenant that LAW known to Jeremiah and his readers as the moral law of God - that defines what sin is -- is written on the heart and mind.
This too - is irrefutable once you look at 'details'
well that is not true - but it is interesting speculation. you have free will of course -- and you are welcome to it.
Jer 31
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."
And in Hebrews 8:6-12 that "New Covenant" is unchanged.
If we look at Exodus 20 we find things like
"do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
"Honor your father and mother" Ex 20:12
These commands were spoken to the people at Sinai - they were written on stone.
When Christ is asked about the way to eternal life He says "Keep the Commandments" and then Christ is asked "which ones"? so then in Matthew 19 he gives a partial list - the same list that shows up again verbatim in Romans 13.
Nothing about those commands "went awol"
It is the moral law of God - it defines what sin is 1 John 3:4 and Romans 3:19-20 says it still condemns all the world as sinners. Showing that all need to accept Christ or else suffer the fire and brimstone punishment of hell.
This as I said before is "irrefutable".
It is the same moral law - in both covenants but the conditions (the covenant) is different because in the old covenant by which all mankind is doomed that moral code is external while under the New Covenant (we also call that the Gospel) it is "written on the heart" because of the new creation, the work of the Gospel
This too - is irrefutable once you look at 'details'
well that is not true - but it is interesting speculation. you have free will of course -- and you are welcome to it.
Jer 31
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."
And in Hebrews 8:6-12 that "New Covenant" is unchanged.
If we look at Exodus 20 we find things like
"do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
"Honor your father and mother" Ex 20:12
These commands were spoken to the people at Sinai - they were written on stone.
When Christ is asked about the way to eternal life He says "Keep the Commandments" and then Christ is asked "which ones"? so then in Matthew 19 he gives a partial list - the same list that shows up again verbatim in Romans 13.
Nothing about those commands "went awol"
It is the moral law of God - it defines what sin is 1 John 3:4 and Romans 3:19-20 says it still condemns all the world as sinners. Showing that all need to accept Christ or else suffer the fire and brimstone punishment of hell.
This as I said before is "irrefutable".
It is the same moral law - in both covenants but the conditions (the covenant) is different because in the old covenant by which all mankind is doomed that moral code is external while under the New Covenant (we also call that the Gospel) it is "written on the heart" because of the new creation, the work of the Gospel
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,277
- 10,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Romans 14 is not even remotely dealing with contrast of O.C vs N.C because in Rom 14 BOTH sides are being defended and affirmed.
"both sides" in Romans 14... take a look at the chapter first. It is not talking about law vs grace or old covenant vs new. It gives examples of opposing or differing points of view
Vegetarian vs meat eating
observing one of the annual feast days -- vs -- observing all of them
Paul defines all of them and does not allow condemnation of either group listed.
until you read what he wrote on that point.
"do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31
"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Rom 8:4-10 the lost "do not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they"
Romans 2:13-16 "it is not the hearers of the LAW that are just before God but the DOERS of the LAW will be JUSTIFIED... on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge"
"both sides" in Romans 14... take a look at the chapter first. It is not talking about law vs grace or old covenant vs new. It gives examples of opposing or differing points of view
Vegetarian vs meat eating
observing one of the annual feast days -- vs -- observing all of them
Paul defines all of them and does not allow condemnation of either group listed.
until you read what he wrote on that point.
"do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31
"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Rom 8:4-10 the lost "do not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they"
Romans 2:13-16 "it is not the hearers of the LAW that are just before God but the DOERS of the LAW will be JUSTIFIED... on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge"
Upvote
0
Sheep dog
Active Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 301
- 253
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Private
It doesn't say Christians are lost or under the law. If all of Romans is considered it's impossible to come to your conclusion.
You have no valid argument let alone valid irrefutable point.
Upvote
0
Sheep dog
Active Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 301
- 253
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Private
Here you conflate laws and covenants. While Abraham did have moral law, Moses says he didn't have the law given to Israel. Even though that law has morals aspects much of that law isn't about morals.
No
Again no.
And Moses is very clear this applies only to Israel in several passages you refuse to accept. The stark reality is you don't believe Moses either.
Here you simply refuse to consider context. Those words alone are contrary to passages in the OT. The meaning you imply with those words make Jesus nothing more than a confused babbling idiot. I've got Jn 10 in mind here.
You're correct here. Those words left with proper authority, not without it.
No as I already said.
Say it all you want. Just doesn't and won't ever make it true. I don't accept Hiltler's pov telling a lie often enough makes it true.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sheep dog
Active Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 301
- 253
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Private
Both sides aren't defended by Paul as the truth or way of salvation.
Paul says - But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
and
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
You're trying to establish self righteousness by the law for salvation.
Jesus calls those who do this thieves in Jn 10.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,277
- 10,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Romans 14 is not even remotely dealing with contrast of O.C vs N.C because in Rom 14 BOTH sides are being defended and affirmed.
"both sides" in Romans 14... take a look at the chapter first. It is not talking about law vs grace or old covenant vs new. It gives examples of opposing or differing points of view
Vegetarian vs meat eating
observing one of the annual feast days -- vs -- observing all of them
Paul defines all of them and does not allow condemnation of either group listed.
yes they are .. read the chapter.
Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. ..
10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God....
13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way
"both sides" in Romans 14... take a look at the chapter first. It is not talking about law vs grace or old covenant vs new. It gives examples of opposing or differing points of view
Vegetarian vs meat eating
observing one of the annual feast days -- vs -- observing all of them
Paul defines all of them and does not allow condemnation of either group listed.
yes they are .. read the chapter.
Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. ..
10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God....
13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,277
- 10,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
You have heavily "quoted yourself" in conclusions you draw in that post.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,277
- 10,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Fine.
Then attention to detail is what would be helpful starting with the term "under the law" as it is defined by Paul -- we should not reject his meaning for it ... and "insert our own".
Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:23 "ALL have sinned"
1 John 3:4 "sin IS transgression of the LAW"
Romans 3:19-21 points out that all the world today is still lost under that same rule. Only in the Gospel - the NEW Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33 in the OLD Testament are we released from the Old Covenant.
It is irrefutable.
Gal 4
Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons
The "child" is the lost person who being "under the law" is "under a tutor" one who directs them to Christ by first showing that they have a problem and that they cannot solve it -- only Christ can solve it.
Gal 3
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
I find your logic "illusive" at that point.
What exactly is there "not to get" here?
You are free to your opinion of course.
But the text is clear - that even Christians were at one time lost and had to accept the Gospel or they would remain lost...
hence "ALL THE WORLD" is made accountable as lost sinners in need of salvation.. accepting the Gospel is the only way out of it.
The point remains.
It is irrefutable.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,277
- 10,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
until you read what he wrote on that point.
"do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31
"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Rom 8:4-10 the lost "do not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they"
Romans 2:13-16 "it is not the hearers of the LAW that are just before God but the DOERS of the LAW will be JUSTIFIED... on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge"
Your statements all refer to the role of God's law in condemning the sinner when it says things like "do not take God's name in vain" and "Honor your father and mother" -- we who are under the NEW Covenant have that LAW of God written on our hearts. We are not at war with it.
The saints "KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
"this IS the Love of God - that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:2-3
"do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31
"do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31
"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Rom 8:4-10 the lost "do not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they"
Romans 2:13-16 "it is not the hearers of the LAW that are just before God but the DOERS of the LAW will be JUSTIFIED... on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge"
Your statements all refer to the role of God's law in condemning the sinner when it says things like "do not take God's name in vain" and "Honor your father and mother" -- we who are under the NEW Covenant have that LAW of God written on our hearts. We are not at war with it.
The saints "KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
"this IS the Love of God - that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:2-3
"do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31
Upvote
0
Similar threads
