- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,314
- 10,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Romans 14 does not delete even one of the Commandments of God
Upvote
0
LK 22:20 eliminates the old covenant.
Hebrews 8 certainly does, clearly, explicitly, and emphatically.LK 22:20 eliminates the old covenant.
True about the old covenant. Not true about the new covenant.The Old Covenant is "obey and live" as Galatians 3 points out.
True the world is lost without God. Not true that subjects one to it for salvation. Read the rest of Romans.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.
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.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.
NoRomans 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.
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.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".
Why are you putting us on as fools?Has nothing to do with the Old Covenant.
LK 22:20 eliminates the old covenant.
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.
What does Galatians 3 have to do with Lk 22:20? I read it to ask why are you returning to the law.The Old Covenant is "obey and live" as Galatians 3 points out.
This doesn't make sense. You said we're released from the Old Covenant. Why do you require adherence to it?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.
Verses 31 and 32 disallow for your opinion here.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.
Really? Then why is it you require adherence to the 4th commandment? Those commandments are the covenant as Moses says in Deut 4:13.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.
Sorry, not as I explained above with verses 31 and 32.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.
ThanksI admire your optimism.
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.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.
...
This in no way enforces the old covenant over the new covenant.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
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.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
Swell2. The purpose is to show that ALL are sinners. STILL to this very day.
Swell3. The LAW defines what SIN IS -- STILL to this very day. Even as Paul was writing .. still the case.
Then the law can't take salvation away as you imply.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.
Faith in Jesus doesn't require keeping the law. Jn 10.5. Faith does not delete/make-void/ that LAW, rather it ESTABLISHES it. That LAW
you already said that. The verse doesn't say sin is only violation of the law.By definition "SIN IS Transgression of the LAW" 1 Jon 3:4 -- even in the NT -- STILL
The law provides no solution to anything. That covenant law wasn't moved, it was and remains replaced.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.
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.Therefore EVEN for Christians - under the NEW Covenant it would STILL be a sin to "take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
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.Romans 7 quotes from that Law -- and so does Romans 13 ... in both cases "The Ten Commandments"
This is an abuse of Mat 19. The OT says no one keeps the law more than once.Romans 13 quotes from the same list after the cross - that Christ quotes from before the cross - in Matthew 19 saying "Keep the Commandments"
LK 22:20 eliminates the old covenant.
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.
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?
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.The Old Covenant is "obey and live" as Galatians 3 points out.
More c&p from a previous post adding nothing new like I said nothing.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.
I've noticed you've said this frequently. Jer 31:32 won't allow for this opinion.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.
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.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.
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.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".
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.Has nothing to do with the Old Covenant.
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: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.
Thanks.I admire your optimism.
Where did I say he was? Please quote.Paul is not "Mixing laws" in Romans 3
OK since you imply the world is under the law, where does your quote say the world is under the law?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
No problem with this.2. The purpose is to show that ALL are sinners. STILL to this very day.
What is your point here? You're bringing in another partial verse foreign to Paul's point from another author.3. The LAW defines what SIN IS -- STILL to this very day. Even as Paul was writing .. still the case.
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.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.
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.5. Faith does not delete/make-void/ that LAW, rather it ESTABLISHES it. That LAW
You're never going to accept what this complete verse says.By definition "SIN IS Transgression of the LAW" 1 Jon 3:4 -- even in the NT -- STILL
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?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.
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.Therefore EVEN for Christians - under the NEW Covenant it would STILL be a sin to "take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
Is your point that is a command to keep the law? It isn't supportable from the text.Romans 7 quotes from that Law -- and so does Romans 13 ... in both cases "The Ten Commandments"
Your implication here makes the OT and Jn 10 false.Romans 13 quotes from the same list after the cross - that Christ quotes from before the cross - in Matthew 19 saying "Keep the Commandments"
Why are you repeating yourself on this without comment on what I posted? I've read Galatians several times
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? .
.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.
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.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.
You have no valid argument let alone valid irrefutable point.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.
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.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.
NoThis too - is irrefutable once you look at 'details'
Again no.well that is not true - but it is interesting speculation. you have free will of course -- and you are welcome to it.
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.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.
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.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.
You're correct here. Those words left with proper authority, not without it.Nothing about those commands "went awol"
No as I already said.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.
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.This as I said before is "irrefutable".
Both sides aren't defended by Paul as the truth or way of salvation.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
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.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 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).
Both sides aren't defended by Paul
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.
Why are you repeating yourself on this without comment on what I posted? I've read Galatians several times
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? .
It doesn't say Christians are lost or under the law.
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.
.