Faith and Obedience

Wordkeeper said:

What's the confusion?

He also says both Jews and Gentiles were always saved by grace. The purpose of the law was to point to Christ, help the world identify Him when He was sent, so they could follow Him. It never made alive. Only by being loyal to God does a person become alive. The difference is subtle:

Click to expand...

Your Matthew 19 quote already contradicted your first statement. The Jews had to keep the law to be saved, until Peter realized in Acts 10 that something has changed in God's eyes. That is why he was able to speak up for Paul in Acts 15.

Peter is a Jew and all that you have claimed he knew were a mystery that was only revealed to the Apostle Paul, and he stated it for the first time in writing in Galatians 3.

If you want to claim that Peter knew all those even before Paul, I will disagree.

The reason why I disagree is based on the account in Acts 10. If he knew everything that was revealed only to Paul by the ascended Christ, he would not have been astonished by anything at Cornelius place, nor would he have stated to Cornelius that it was against the Law for a Jew to associate with the Gentile if, as you said, he knew that "both Jews and Gentiles were always saved by grace".

Don't read Paul into everything you read about in the Old Testament, as well as the 4 Gospels and early Acts. In short, don't "anticipate revelation".

Guojing said:

In rev 16, the church is already gone from the scene. Jesus will come back with us the church for the Jews.

There is no contradiction between that and the rapture of the church.

As for James 5 he is writing to the Jews that will still be on earth during the tribulation. You don’t use that doctrine for the church age now.

Click to expand...

Farewell to the Rapture

by N. T. Wright

Quote
Paul’s description of Jesus’ reappearance in 1 Thessalonians 4 is a brightly colored version of what he says in two other passages, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and Philippians 3:20-21: At Jesus’ “coming” or “appearing,” those who are still alive will be “changed” or “transformed” so that their mortal bodies will become incorruptible, deathless. This is all that Paul intends to say in Thessalonians, but here he borrows imagery—from biblical and political sources—to enhance his message. Little did he know how his rich metaphors would be misunderstood two millennia later.

First, Paul echoes the story of Moses coming down the mountain with the Torah. The trumpet sounds, a loud voice is heard, and after a long wait Moses comes to see what’s been going on in his absence.

Second, he echoes Daniel 7, in which “the people of the saints of the Most High” (that is, the “one like a son of man”) are vindicated over their pagan enemy by being raised up to sit with God in glory. This metaphor, applied to Jesus in the Gospels, is now applied to Christians who are suffering persecution.

Third, Paul conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province. The citizens go out to meet him in open country and then escort him into the city. Paul’s image of the people “meeting the Lord in the air” should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world.

Oldmantook said:

Why not try to change the other person's mind? Correct exegesis requires that Paul's writings have to be interpreted in light of what Jesus stated - not the other way around. It's called the law of first mention. If you could put forth a cogent, scripturally-based argument, then I would certainly be willing to reevaluate my position and change it if necessary. Scripture does not contradict itself so we both can't be right. Iron sharpens iron. If agreement can't be reached, then we simply agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Just take what you have used as your main point, your view on Romans 8:13 have been formed over a long period of study and reflection. You have likely use it, not just in this thread but other discussion threads.

Those who respond to you are strangers whom you will never meet in real life, it is unlikely their own perspectives will change your already formed and solidified view of salvation based on probably years of reflection.

The more they seem to be against your view, the more you will resist changing your view. This is basic force field analysis. People rarely change their already formed opinions, especially in Internet discussions with strangers.

Guojing said:

Just take what you have used as your main point, your view on Romans 8:13 have been formed over a long period of study and reflection. You have likely use it, not just in this thread but other discussion threads.

Those who respond to you are strangers whom you will never meet in real life, it is unlikely their own perspectives will change your already formed and solidified view of salvation based on probably years of reflection.

The more they seem to be against your view, the more you will resist changing your view. This is basic force field analysis. People rarely change their already formed opinions, especially in Internet discussions with strangers.

Click to expand...

Like I said if you form a cogent, scripturally based argument which I find no reason to disagree with then it behooves me to change my belief. After all, no one wants to believe wrongly correct? I actually once believed as you do as that is what I was taught by my professors in seminary - all of whom were Reformed. I however changed my opinion after years of my own study but I admit that it was very difficult to do as I had to unlearn things that I thought I had already learned. Change can be difficult but the reward is worth it. May the Holy Spirit lead you in your own studies.

Oldmantook said:

Like I said if you form a cogent, scripturally based argument which I find no reason to disagree with then it behooves me to change my belief. After all, no one wants to believe wrongly correct? I actually once believed as you do as that is what I was taught by my professors in seminary - all of whom were Reformed. I however changed my opinion after years of my own study but I admit that it was very difficult to do as I had to unlearn things that I thought I had already learned. Change can be difficult but the reward is worth it. May the Holy Spirit lead you in your own studies.

Click to expand...

Once you engage in enough Internet debates, you will realize that one person's "cogent, scripturally based argument" is another person's "dishonest twisting of the scriptures".

Guojing said:

Your Matthew 19 quote already contradicted your first statement. The Jews had to keep the law to be saved, until Peter realized in Acts 10 that something has changed in God's eyes. That is why he was able to speak up for Paul in Acts 15.

Click to expand...

What Jesus taught in Matthew 19 is not salvation by being under the Law, through works. It is salvation by being under grace through faith, loyalty!

See the difference:

When you are under the Covenant of Law, it is a covenant of compensation. Israel performs a job and God compensates her by protecting her from His wrath. Israel must perform according to the job description, with specific tasks. These tasks do specific functions, and in Israel’s case, they must point to Christ. In other words, Israel was the pre-publicity agent for God, His hired hand.

When you are under the Covenant of Grace, it is a covenant of grant. It is the obligation of the master to his servant and involves gifts given to individuals who were loyal serving their masters. The servants are identified by loyalty. Loyalty can be expressed by believing, agreeing, or doing things the way the master wants things done, depending on the situation.

What do the actions in Matthew 19:18-19 look like?

Peter is a Jew and all that you have claimed he knew were a mystery that was only revealed to the Apostle Paul, and he stated it for the first time in writing in Galatians 3.

Click to expand...

I didn’t claim Peter knew that God intended to save Gentiles by making Israel a vessel of dishonor, which is the mystery. I claimed Peter knew all men were always saved by grace. The Sinaitic Covenant did not replace the Abrahamic Covenant, it was added to it. God protected israel from His wrath when they pre-publiciised the Messiah, and saved people who were loyal to Him, some of whom were in Israel, like Joshua and Caleb.

If you want to claim that Peter knew all those even before Paul, I will disagree.

The reason why I disagree is based on the account in Acts 10. If he knew everything that was revealed only to Paul by the ascended Christ, he would not have been astonished by anything at Cornelius place, nor would he have stated to Cornelius that it was against the Law for a Jew to associate with the Gentile if, as you said, he knew that "both Jews and Gentiles were always saved by grace".

Click to expand...

The knowledge Peter had was that people were saved by grace, by being loyal, not by the Mosaic Covenant, learned here:

Acts of the Apostles 10
34Opening his mouth, Peter said:

“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

Don't read Paul into everything you read about in the Old Testament, as well as the 4 Gospels and early Acts. In short, don't "anticipate revelation".

Click to expand...

Where did I identify revelation where it is not given?

Wordkeeper said:

What Jesus taught in Matthew 19 is not salvation by being under the Law, through works. It is salvation by being under grace through faith, loyalty!

See the difference:

When you are under the Covenant of Law, it is a covenant of compensation. Israel performs a job and God compensates her by protecting her from His wrath. Israel must perform according to the job description, with specific tasks. These tasks do specific functions, and in Israel’s case, they must point to Christ. In other words, Israel was the pre-publicity agent for God, His hired hand.

When you are under the Covenant of Grace, it is a covenant of grant. It is the obligation of the master to his servant and involves gifts given to individuals who were loyal serving their masters. The servants are identified by loyalty. Loyalty can be expressed by believing, agreeing, or doing things the way the master wants things done, depending on the situation.

What do the actions in Matthew 19:18-19 look like?



I didn’t claim Peter knew that God intended to save Gentiles by making Israel a vessel of dishonor, which is the mystery. I claimed Peter knew all men were always saved by grace. The Sinaitic Covenant did not replace the Abrahamic Covenant, it was added to it. God protected israel from His wrath when they pre-publiciised the Messiah, and saved people who were loyal to Him, some of whom were in Israel, like Joshua and Caleb.



The knowledge Peter had was that people were saved by grace, not by the Mosaic Covenant, learned here:

Acts of the Apostles 10
34Opening his mouth, Peter said:

“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.



Where did I identify revelation where it is not given?

Click to expand...

Okay, if your point was that, only at Acts 10, Peter start to have an inkling that Gentiles are now included in the salvation plan of God, and its by pure grace thru faith alone, apart from works, I can agree with you.

You gave the impression that Peter always knew from the start. Now I see that is not what you meant.

Tree of Life said:

Ah. So Jesus fills in the gaps? And faith makes up for our failure to obey? Our salvation might be 80% obedience and 20% faith in Jesus?

Click to expand...

You need to follow Law, to gentiles which is our conscience. We will certainly fail. That's why we need faith in order to be qualified by the covenant as the righteous. Faith never implies you don't need to act in accordance to your conscience.

You need to always try your best to act by your conscience (which is based off God Law in our hearts). However you will for sure fail at some point, as even our conscience is a twisted version though based off God's Law. That's why some criminals don't feel bad to harm others. We don't have a standardized conscience because our conscience now at best is just a reflection of God's Law. Our heart (everyone's heart with no exception, that's why no one can be righteous in front of Law, not even one) with our conscience is said to be hardened.

An actual example. We have money in excess to enjoy our lives however children in Africa are dying of hunger. We are actually murderer in terms of God's Law. However our conscience may not tell us how serious it is to enjoy our lives while watching the children die. That's how we fail. That's where we need faith instead of the work of Law to be saved, simply because we can't be saved this way at all. However all this by no means says that we don't need to try our best to act by our conscience (a form of Law).

Willie T said:

I think it kind of boils down to what you have made "obedience" into meaning. If it is keeping laws to you, then I think you have a problem already.

Some of you here would be shocked to know what Augustine said about that. He basically said to love God, and do as you wish.
Why say such a thing? Because if you truly love God, your actions will already be motivated in obedience to God's wishes.

Click to expand...

Here we go.... another Christian who confuses observing the Torah with trying to gain salvation by observing and practicing obedience.

Guojing said:

Okay, if your point was that, only at Acts 10, Peter start to have an inkling that Gentiles are now included in the salvation plan of God, and its by pure grace thru faith alone, apart from works, I can agree with you.

You gave the impression that Peter always knew from the start. Now I see that is not what you meant.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is you do not even understand what purpose the Torah has in the believer's life. Abraham was saved by FAITH, DAVID was saved by faith... if the Torah was set aside PLEASE tell me why did all the apostles observe Sabbath and the feast days until they died?

mkgal1 said:

Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ. We don't follow (nor can we!) most of the instruction given to Moses as there is no longer a Levitical priesthood (He is our high priests) or a temple (He is the temple - the chief cornerstone).

Click to expand...

Well, then you have a problem because at the end of acts James instructs Paul to take himself and 2 other men to go to the temple and take the vow of the Nazarene which included making sacrifices. CLEARLY, Paul did NOT agree with your view on the role the Torah plays. Paul >>>> than the confused gentiles that have set aside Scripture in for their traditions of man.

mkgal1 said:

The author of Hebrews is in disagreement with you on that:

Hebrews 8:13 ~ By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
​

....and it DID disappear in 70 AD (along with the destruction of the Temple and the Levitical priesthood).

The Old Covenant is obsolete - we are in the NEW covenant.


Can you figure out a way to OBEY the sacrificial laws in Leviticus without a Levite priest or a Temple? Jesus - the Lamb of God - was the final and perfect sacrifice (those sacrifices in the OT were merely shadows of what was to come). There is a lot in the OT that has "passed away" and is "inactive".

The New Covenant is internal with God’s word written on the heart. This is far different than the law of Moses:

Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (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...

(33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel ; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

(34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” ​

....but we're getting off track.

Click to expand...

Show me 1 single scripture that PROVES conclusively that Yeshua set aside the Torah. Biblical exegesis Says that you need at least 2 scripture verses that CONCLUSIVELY establish a doctrine as having veracity. The Torah is so foundational to the relationship with the Father. Are you prepared to say that you believe the 10 commandments are now just the 10 Suggestions? If you believe this you are following a doctrine of devils. Yeshua himself said... Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. Love your neighbor as yourself... FOR UPONE THESE 2 the ENTIRY of the Torah and prophets are ESTABLISHED. The Torah is 100% about HOW you love G-d and how you are to love your neighbor. God spells it out so that YOU and I are not left "doing what is right in our own eyes.." every time in scripture you see that phrase GOd calls that EVIL

BukiRob said:

Well, then you have a problem because at the end of acts James instructs Paul to take himself and 2 other men to go to the temple and take the vow of the Nazarene which included making sacrifices. CLEARLY, Paul did NOT agree with your view on the role the Torah plays. Paul >>>> than the confused gentiles that have set aside Scripture in for their traditions of man.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with that. James was written prior to the destruction of Herod's temple. That's considered the transcovenantal period that the author of Hebrews was referring to that would soon (to them) disappear.

Guojing said:

Peter didn't even realize that Gentiles could be accepted by God until the Cornelius incident. They weren't following the Law, they weren't circumcised but they received the Holy Spirit, which astonished all of the Jews then, including Peter.

As for the law revealing sin, Peter was not aware of all these until he read Paul's epistles.

Click to expand...

Jews in that day by merely being in the same dwelling as a Gentile were considered ritually UNCLEAN. The entire vision was about the fact that Gentiles were NOT unclean. The problem is that we gentiles are SO far removed from the Jewish foundation that we believe all sorts of things that are error and misunderstand that NONE of the apostles set aside the Torah INCLUDING PAUL James says this plainly and the very error that the church embraces today concerning the Torah was the very same that Paul and ALL the Apostles were fighting against. Acts 21 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

BukiRob said:

Show me 1 single scripture that PROVES conclusively that Yeshua set aside the Torah.

Click to expand...

I never implied the Torah was "set aside".

mkgal1 said:

I have no problem with that. James was written prior to the destruction of Herod's temple. That's considered the transcovenantal period that the author of Hebrews was referring to that would soon (to them) disappear.

Hebrews 8:13 - By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.​

Click to expand...

Nope you are clinging to error. If the Torah were done away with Messiah would have addressed this issue... you clearly have no concept how FOUDATIONAL it is... Then do explain why in the Milenial reign the Sabbath aand Feast day of Adonai will be observed BY ALL. And those nations that are not in obedience will have rain withheld from them

BukiRob said:

Nope you are clinging to error. If the Torah were done away with Messiah would have addressed this issue.

Click to expand...

Nope. You are misunderstanding me. I'm not suggesting the Torah is done away with.

Guojing said:

Yes, Peter recognized that the grace dispensation has came, after the Jews did their final rejection of God the Holy Spirit. So Jews from mid Acts onward are to be saved like the Gentiles. That does not contradict what I stated.

James unfortunately did not agree and Acts 21 showed that.

Click to expand...

You have ZERO scriptural support for this and it shows you have NO IDEA what role the Torah was to play in the life of the believer. As I have repeatedly said ALL of mankind from Adam to the last ARE SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH. Most of Yeshua's ministry was showing that the teachers of the law had PERVERTED IT...

Believers do the same thing today not understanding that YESHUA IS THE TORAH come to life. John makes this crystal clear in the 1st chapter of John when he says THE WORD BECAME FLESH. In a jews mind, Torah IS THE WORD. It is CLEAR this is what John is speaking of as the canonized new T did not yet exist

mkgal1 said:

Nope. You are misunderstanding me. I'm not suggesting the Torah is done away with.

Click to expand...

It exists for the Christian to illuminate HOW we are to love others and HOW we are to love G-d. If we buffer against it and choose to say it is not for the believer today then you reap the error of this. The reason the gentile church is IMPOTENT today is precisely that we have rejected the Torah and have been taught it is not applicable to the believer's life today. We are at the very end of the age of Gentiles and life the Jews at the time of messiah we also have rejected the truth and separate the COMMANDMENTS of G-d and exchanged them for doctrine of error setting aside the appointed times decreed by GOD

Wordkeeper said:

What Jesus taught in Matthew 19 is not salvation by being under the Law, through works. It is salvation by being under grace through faith, loyalty!

Click to expand...

Yes, but it was always that way. Paul’s whole point in Romans is that Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way, and always were.

Jesus and the rich young man only talk about part of it, presumably because the young man already understood what every Jew understood: Israel was God’s people solely through God’s grace; they certainly didn’t merit being chosen from the nations. Having been chosen (justified would be Paul’s term) without merit, they were then responsible for keeping the commandments. For Jesus that’s the 10 commandments, but we see elsewhere that he had a unique take on those commandments that turned them more into a statement of the need to love God and neighbor than legal requirements.

Paul tells us that this arrangement has now been expanded to include Gentiles. They are also justified by grace through faith, just as Israel was. And they are also expected to abide by the commandments — with Jesus’ understanding of them — and would be held accountable for doing so.

Of course Jesus adds a new element to the picture. We now have the new covenant, which writes the law into our hearts. But the fundamental scheme is the same: justified by grace and accountable for how we live in response.