Matthew 5:17-20 and Dispensationalism

food4thought said:

Hi, Soyeong, thank you for responding! I think we need to take a closer look at some key verses in Acts 15, though.

Acts 15:4-6 NASB When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. (5) But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." (6) The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.​

Here we see that the issue under consideration was not only circumcision, but also observing the Law of Moses (note they did not just say law, which could have been meaning the traditions, but they specifically said "the Law of Moses"). This is what the Apostles and elders were to render a decision on: circumcision of gentiles AND gentiles observing the Law of Moses. What was their decision?

Click to expand...

In the 1st century, there existed a large body of supplementary Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences, which were being taught that people needed to obey in order to become justified, and which they considered to be passed down orally from Moses, and which Jesus criticized as placing a heavy burden on the people (Matthew 23:3-4). For example, there are 24 chapters worth of traditions in the Mishnah for just how rest on the Sabbath that range everywhere from how far someone can walk to how much someone can lift before it counted as work, and they wouldn't have taught a Gentile to keep the Sabbath holy without teaching all of their traditions for how to keep it, so again the issue was with mountains man-made laws that have been add on top of what God has commanded, which are the heavy burden that no one can bear.

First, Peter says:

Acts 15:7-11 NASB After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. (8) "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; (9) and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. (10) "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? (11) "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
​

So we see that Peter calls the Law of Moses "a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear".

Click to expand...

In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, it says that God's law is not too difficult to obey, so if Acts 15:10 had been referring to God's law, then they would have been in direct disagreement with Scriptures and would have therefore been wrong. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3, it confirms that to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome, to to interpret Acts 15:10 as referring to God's law is essentially ruling that Gentiles shouldn't love God.

The opinion that we have of the law matches our opinion of the Lawgiver. For example, God is trustworthy, so His law therefore is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7, Nehemiah 9:13), and a law that isn't trustworthy can't come from a God who is trustworthy. Likewise, a law that is holy, righteous, and good can only come from a God who is holy, righteous, and good. The Psalms contain extremely high praise for God's law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, which certainly matched his opinion of the Lawgiver, without even a hint that he considered it to be a burden that no one could bear. If we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of God's law, then we will share it and consider any view of the law that isn't in accordance with the Psalms to be incorrect. Paul also delighted in obeying God's law (Romans 7:12), so he was on the same page as David. So if someone has such a poor view of God's law that they consider a to be a burden that no one could bear, then they must have an equally poor opinion of God for giving it. Jews thank God every Sabbath for giving the Torah as instructions of life, have a day dedicated to rejoicing over the Torah, and I could link you videos of Jews dancing with a Torah scroll, so thinking that Jews viewed the Torah as being a burden that no one can bear is incompatible with the historical and cultural reality of the extremely high regard that Jews have held for the Torah.

Remarkable statement, and what James says about it is conclusive:

Acts 15:19-21 NASB "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, (20) but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. (21) "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
​

So this is what gentiles are commanded. Now it is apparent that there are many moral aspects of the Law of Moses that are reiterated in the NT, but they are NT commands, and that is as far as it goes.

Click to expand...

Clearly these four laws are not an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required for a mature Gentile believer, but rather as stated, this was a list intended not to make things too difficult for those new believers, which they excused in verse 21 by saying that they would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues. In other words, when you have a bunch of new believers coming to faith who are unfamiliar with Christianity, then in order to avoid overwhelming them it becomes important to be on the same page about which things are necessary to teach them right away and which things can be taught over time as they mature on their faith.

The NT is binding on Christians, not the OT Law, for as James says of those who would only keep some of the Law:

James 2:10 NASB For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
​

The Law is a unit. If you are going to keep the Law, keep the whole Law (offerings, penalties for breaking the Law, Sabbaths, feasts, etc.). We cannot even pretend to keep the whole Law today.

Click to expand...

In James 2:1-11, he was speaking to people who had already sinned by showing favoritism, so he was not telling them that they needed to have perfect obedience because that would have already been too late, and he was not discouraging them from trying to obey the law, but rather he was encouraging them to repent and do a better job of obeying the law more consistently.

As the writer of Hebrews rightly says:

Hebrews 8:13 NASB When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.​

Therefore, the Law of Moses as a whole is obsolete, and now has disappeared (since there is no temple). What is left is that which is reiterated in the NT. I don't have to keep the Sabbath. I am not required to keep the kosher laws. I am not to worry about whether my clothing is woven of more than one kind of fabric. Etc., etc., etc. Hope this helps you, Soyeong.

Click to expand...

The way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, so there is nothing about the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete that means that God's righteousness or the way to act in accordance with His righteousness became obsolete along with it, but rather in Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involves following God's law.

God has not changed. His character and nature are forever immutable. How God deals with the human race has changed throughout history, though. Adam in the garden. Noah after the flood. Abraham being promised the land. Moses and the Law. And on it goes.

God bless you, Soyeong (and Jeff!);
Michael

Click to expand...

If the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness changed when the New Covenant was made, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, but God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous are eternally valid regardless of which covenant we are under, but as part of the New Covenant, those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:4). For example, it will always be righteous to help the poor no matter how many covenants God makes and if God were to ever make a covenant where it was in accordance with His righteousness to take advantage of the poor, then His righteousness would not be eternal.

Guojing said:

So if Noah merely believed in God but did not build an ark, would he still be considered justified?

Click to expand...

What we believe is expressed through our actions, which is why James 2:17-18 says that faith without works is dead and that he would show his faith by his works. The Bible does not support the concept of mentally affirming that something is true while refusing to take actions that affirm that it is true, but rather our actions show whether or not there is any weight to what we say that we believe. Every example of faith listed in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone taking an action that expressed that faith, so if no did not build the ark, then it would be false that he believed God.

Soyeong said:

What we believe is expressed through our actions, which is why James 2:17-18 says that faith without works is dead and that he would show his faith by his works. The Bible does not support the concept of mentally affirming that something is true while refusing to take actions that affirm that it is true, but rather our actions show whether or not there is any weight to what we say that we believe. Every example of faith listed in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone taking an action that expressed that faith, so if no did not build the ark, then it would be false that he believed God.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree with you. For everyone else before the gospel of the grace of God revealed to Paul, faith without works is dead. As you quoted wisely in Hebrews 11

Abel had to believe by offering the correct sacrifice.

Abraham had to believe by leaving the land he was from to go to a new land.

Noah had to believe by building an ark

Rahab had to believe by hiding the spies.

and so on and so forth.

BUT NOW, we believe in the gospel of grace by ceasing from all works and putting our faith in Jesus' death burial and resurrection.

"BUT NOW the righteousness of God without the law is manifested" (Rom. 3:21);

"To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5)

"Being Justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24);

"In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7);

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us" (Tit. 3:5);

"Not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9)

That is the main difference between our gospel now, and all the gospels that were preached to the OT saints.

food4thought said:

Greetings! Welcome! Here is the Scripture I would like to discuss:

Matthew 5:17-20 NASB "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (18) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (19) "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (20) "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.​

Note that Jesus has the entire Law and prophets in view here. Note also that He says we are not to "annul" even "the least of these commandments", nor are we to teach others to do so. Again, He has the entire Law and prophets in view. It is an inescapable fact that the people Jesus was directing this teaching to were to obey the entirety of the Law and prophets, and teach others to do so. There is no way around that fact. I've tried really hard to find one, believe me.

Yet it is also an inescapable fact that the Apostles taught that we were not bound by the Mosaic Law, but that we were not under the Law (Acts 15; Galatians). I don't think you need me to post more Scriptures to support that point, but I can if you wish.

The answer to this dilemma is found in Dispensationalism, and nowhere else I am aware of. To the best of my knowledge, Dispensationalism explains that this teaching was either, 1) for the Millennial Kingdom, or 2) this teaching was directed only to ethnic Israel. Either way, this teaching of Jesus is not DIRECTLY applicable to the predominantly Gentile church during this dispensation. Not saying it is of no value to the church (as some slanderously accuse dispensationalists of saying!), but that it's intended audience was Jews under the Law and/or Kingdom Age believers.


If someone could explain how to understand this passage, without minimizing the import of Jesus' words, in another way I would be happy to hear it.

God bless you;
Michael

Click to expand...

What I felt the most interesting was that the resurrected Christ Jesus did not tell the 11 that the Law has been finally nailed to the cross.

Many Christians believed that the new covenant of grace happened either at the cross when Jesus said "it is finished" and the temple veil tearing down, or at Acts 2 after the Holy Spirit and Pentecost.

But as far as you can tell, every Jew, including Peter, James, John still continue keeping the Law of Moses throughout Acts.

What do you think of this puzzle?

Guojing said:

Yes I agree with you. For everyone else before the gospel of the grace of God revealed to Paul, faith without works is dead. As you quoted wisely in Hebrews 11

Abel had to believe by offering the correct sacrifice.

Abraham had to believe by leaving the land he was from to go to a new land.

Noah had to believe by building an ark

Rahab had to believe by hiding the spies.

and so on and so forth.

BUT NOW, we believe in the gospel of grace by ceasing from all works and putting our faith in Jesus' death burial and resurrection.

Click to expand...

In Matthew 23:23, Christ said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so obedience to God's will has always been about putting our faith in him, while ceasing from all works is the very opposite of what it looks like to put our faith in his death, burial, and resurrection. In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, which is what God's law was given to instruct us how to do. Furthermore, verse 14 says that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so if we believe in what Jesus accomplished on the cross, then we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20) and will not return to the lawlessness that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from.

"BUT NOW the righteousness of God without the law is manifested" (Rom. 3:21);

"To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5)

"Being Justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24);

"In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7);

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us" (Tit. 3:5);

"Not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9)

That is the main difference between our gospel now, and all the gospels that were preached to the OT saints.

Click to expand...

In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they didn't understand that the righteousness of God comes only through faith in Christ, so they failed to attain righteousness because they pursued the law as though righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the law as though righteousness were by faith, for Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. So thinking that obedience to God's law was ever about trying to establish our own righteousness is making the same fundamental misunderstanding of its goal that caused the Israelites to fail to attain righteousness. Again, in Romans 3:21-22, the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ, so this has always been the one and only way to attain righteousness. Abraham was justified by faith, so while it has not always manifested, it has always been there.

Soyeong said:

In Matthew 23:23, Christ said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so obedience to God's will has always been about putting our faith in him, while ceasing from all works is the very opposite of what it looks like to put our faith in his death, burial, and resurrection. In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, which is what God's law was given to instruct us how to do. Furthermore, verse 14 says that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so if we believe in what Jesus accomplished on the cross, then we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20) and will not return to the lawlessness that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from.



In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they didn't understand that the righteousness of God comes only through faith in Christ, so they failed to attain righteousness because they pursued the law as though righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the law as though righteousness were by faith, for Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. So thinking that obedience to God's law was ever about trying to establish our own righteousness is making the same fundamental misunderstanding of its goal that caused the Israelites to fail to attain righteousness. Again, in Romans 3:21-22, the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ, so this has always been the one and only way to attain righteousness. Abraham was justified by faith, so while it has not always manifested, it has always been there.

Click to expand...

So again my question is, if Abraham believed God but did not want to move to the land God told him to, will he still be justified?

Guojing said:

So again my question is, if Abraham believed God but did not want to move to the land God told him to, will he still be justified?

Click to expand...

If we think that God can be trusted to guide us in how we should live, then we will follow His instructions. If Abraham refuse to obey God, then that would mean that he does not believe Him, so your scenario is contradictory.

Soyeong said:

If we think that God can be trusted to guide us in how we should live, then we will follow His instructions. If Abraham refuse to obey God, then that would mean that he does not believe Him, so your scenario is contradictory.

Click to expand...

If you have that doctrine, then when it comes to the current gospel of grace that Paul tells us Gentiles, after we follow 1 Cor 15:1-4, we believe that Christ died for our sins, and rose again on the 3rd day as a sign that we are forever justified before God, what is there for us to do after that?

You now understand the difference between our current gospel of grace, and all the other good news preached to the OT saints?

Guojing said:

If you have that doctrine, then when it comes to the current gospel of grace that Paul tells us Gentiles, after we follow 1 Cor 15:1-4, we believe that Christ died for our sins, and rose again on the 3rd day as a sign that we are forever justified before God, what is there for us to do after that?

You now understand the difference between our current gospel of grace, and all the other good news preached to the OT saints?

Click to expand...

Again, in Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to obey God's law and if we believe in what Jesus accomplished in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, then we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law, so it is the same Gospel. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith. Strong's defines grace as "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" and when God's will is reflected in our lives, it takes the form of obedience to His law (Psalms 40:8). So grace is the power of God to overcome lawlessness in our lives and it is by grace that God teaches us to obey His law.

Soyeong said:

Again, in Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to obey God's law and if we believe in what Jesus accomplished in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, then we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law, so it is the same Gospel. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith. Strong's defines grace as "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" and when God's will is reflected in our lives, it takes the form of obedience to His law (Psalms 40:8). So grace is the power of God to overcome lawlessness in our lives and it is by grace that God teaches us to obey His law.

Click to expand...

You have not really answered my question.

Let me ask in another way, out of the good works you believe we need to do, which one of those, if we do not do, we will lose our justification?

Can you be specific about the good work, as I was for Noah (build ark), Abraham (Move house), Abel (offer the correct sacrifice), Rahab (hide spies).

food4thought said:

Greetings! Welcome! Here is the Scripture I would like to discuss:

Matthew 5:17-20 NASB "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (18) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (19) "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (20) "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.​

Note that Jesus has the entire Law and prophets in view here. Note also that He says we are not to "annul" even "the least of these commandments", nor are we to teach others to do so. Again, He has the entire Law and prophets in view. It is an inescapable fact that the people Jesus was directing this teaching to were to obey the entirety of the Law and prophets, and teach others to do so. There is no way around that fact. I've tried really hard to find one, believe me.

Yet it is also an inescapable fact that the Apostles taught that we were not bound by the Mosaic Law, but that we were not under the Law (Acts 15; Galatians). I don't think you need me to post more Scriptures to support that point, but I can if you wish.

The answer to this dilemma is found in Dispensationalism, and nowhere else I am aware of. To the best of my knowledge, Dispensationalism explains that this teaching was either, 1) for the Millennial Kingdom, or 2) this teaching was directed only to ethnic Israel. Either way, this teaching of Jesus is not DIRECTLY applicable to the predominantly Gentile church during this dispensation. Not saying it is of no value to the church (as some slanderously accuse dispensationalists of saying!), but that it's intended audience was Jews under the Law and/or Kingdom Age believers.


If someone could explain how to understand this passage, without minimizing the import of Jesus' words, in another way I would be happy to hear it.

God bless you;
Michael

Click to expand...

Matthew calls the Sermon on the Mount the doctrine of Christ (Matthew 7:28). And John says any who do not have the doctrine of Christ do not have God (2 John 9–11).

food4thought said:

Greetings! Welcome! Here is the Scripture I would like to discuss:

Matthew 5:17-20 NASB "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (18) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (19) "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (20) "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.​

Note that Jesus has the entire Law and prophets in view here. Note also that He says we are not to "annul" even "the least of these commandments", nor are we to teach others to do so. Again, He has the entire Law and prophets in view. It is an inescapable fact that the people Jesus was directing this teaching to were to obey the entirety of the Law and prophets, and teach others to do so. There is no way around that fact. I've tried really hard to find one, believe me.

Yet it is also an inescapable fact that the Apostles taught that we were not bound by the Mosaic Law, but that we were not under the Law (Acts 15; Galatians). I don't think you need me to post more Scriptures to support that point, but I can if you wish.

The answer to this dilemma is found in Dispensationalism, and nowhere else I am aware of. To the best of my knowledge, Dispensationalism explains that this teaching was either, 1) for the Millennial Kingdom, or 2) this teaching was directed only to ethnic Israel. Either way, this teaching of Jesus is not DIRECTLY applicable to the predominantly Gentile church during this dispensation. Not saying it is of no value to the church (as some slanderously accuse dispensationalists of saying!), but that it's intended audience was Jews under the Law and/or Kingdom Age believers.


If someone could explain how to understand this passage, without minimizing the import of Jesus' words, in another way I would be happy to hear it.

God bless you;
Michael

Click to expand...

Jesus didn't come to abolish the Torah, but to fulfill it; He did not come to abolish the Prophets, but to fulfill their words.

This isn't about dispensations, but covenants. Jews were to observe the precepts of Torah under the Covenant God made with them at Mt. Horeb through Moses. Jesus, in teaching here, isn't teaching to depart from Torah, and speaks in very harsh terms those who would turn children from God's precepts, just as He condemned those who betrayed God's precepts by their "traditions".

Christ also says, at the Last Supper, that He establishes a new covenant in His blood. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says that if there is a new covenant, then there is an old covenant, and the old covenant no longer applies. Under the new covenant, made with both Jew and Gentile in and through Christ--His suffering, death, resurrection, et al--the old covenant no longer is in operation for those of faith. It's why St. Peter could be told, "Get up and eat" in the vision he was given, though alluding to the Gentiles, it is precisely the showing forth of the Gentiles' acceptance that makes plain that a new order has been established by Jesus.

The non-applicability of the Torah is not the abolition of the Torah, but rather the fulfilling of the Torah's purpose. Which St. Paul says is that of a school teacher, the Torah's purpose was to point to and lead to Christ. The giving of the covenant in Sinai served to point to Christ. With the coming of Christ the purpose for which these things were given have been accomplished.

Torah is not abolished, but fulfilled. The reason for its existence, Jesus, has come to pass. And with Him the old things have given way to the new, that by His death and resurrection there is a new order, the advent of the new which has its fullness at His return when the dead are raised and God restores all things (a new heavens and a new earth, the Age to Come), but is here in part: For the Messiah has come and taken His throne as the King, at the right hand of the Father, from whence He will come again as judge of the living and the dead. Just as foretold by Daniel, the Son of Man was taken up into the heavens before the Ancient of Days and given everlasting dominion.

And so we are, in present, in the now and not yet of the everlasting kingdom; the kingdom came through the Christ, and taking His seat at the right hand of the Father He lives and reigns as King of kings and Lord of lords, and He exercises His dominion through His Church called to preach the forgiveness of sins in His name, to make disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, to be a holy nation, loving and serving one another and our neighbors. The Lord reigns, not like the kings of this fallen age, by way of violence and fear, but by love, mercy, and humility of the cross; in the victory of His resurrection which is for us and the whole world. Christ is risen, and life wins.

-CryptoLutheran

Guojing said:

You have not really answered my question.

Let me ask in another way, out of the good works you believe we need to do, which one of those, if we do not do, we will lose our justification?

Can you be specific about the good work, as I was for Noah (build ark), Abraham (Move house), Abel (offer the correct sacrifice), Rahab (hide spies).

Click to expand...

It has never been the lack of works that cause someone to lose their justification, but the lack of faith, which is expressed as a lack of works. While it is true that Abraham believed God, so he was justified, it is also true that Abraham believed God, so he followed God's instruction to offer Isaac. So was not justified by his obedience as thought it were something that could be earned, but rather the same faith by which he was justified was also expressed as obedience. Obedience to God's instructions has always been about putting our faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law. So only those who have faith in God will obey His law and be justified by that said faith, which is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified. If Abraham had refused to act in a way that expressed His faith in God to guide him in how he should live, then he would not have had faith in God to guide him, and it would be the lack of faith that would be the problem, not the lack of works.

Soyeong said:

It has never been the lack of works that cause someone to lose their justification, but the lack of faith, which is expressed as a lack of works. While it is true that Abraham believed God, so he was justified, it is also true that Abraham believed God, so he followed God's instruction to offer Isaac. So was not justified by his obedience as thought it were something that could be earned, but rather the same faith by which he was justified was also expressed as obedience. Obedience to God's instructions has always been about putting our faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law. So only those who have faith in God will obey His law and be justified by that said faith, which is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified. If Abraham had refused to act in a way that expressed His faith in God to guide him in how he should live, then he would not have had faith in God to guide him, and it would be the lack of faith that would be the problem, not the lack of works.

Click to expand...

You are still not answering my question.

Under the current Gospel of Grace that Paul preaches, after we believed in Jesus death burial and resurrection, what are the works that we must do, that if we don't we will lose our justification?

Guojing said:

You are still not answering my question.

Under the current Gospel of Grace that Paul preaches, after we believed in Jesus death burial and resurrection, what are the works that we must do, that if we don't we will lose our justification?

Click to expand...

Again our justification is not based on the works that we do or don't do, but on whether we have faith. Our justification has never been something that can be earned or sold back. To use an analogy, if a professional musician were to train me how to play an instrument as a free gift to me, then the training itself would be the content of the gift and participating in that training would be doing nothing to earn it such that they would owe their training to me if I practiced enough in between sessions, but rather that is what it would look like to receive their gift. In the same way, in Titus 2:11-14, being trained by grace to obey God's law through faith is itself the content of the free gift and participating in that training would be doing nothing to earn it, but rather that is what it would look like to receive it.

Soyeong said:

Again our justification is not based on the works that we do or don't do, but on whether we have faith. Our justification has never been something that can be earned or sold back. To use an analogy, if a professional musician were to train me how to play an instrument as a free gift to me, then the training itself would be the content of the gift and participating in that training would be doing nothing to earn it such that they would owe their training to me if I practiced enough in between sessions, but rather that is what it would look like to receive their gift. In the same way, in Titus 2:11-14, being trained by grace to obey God's law through faith is itself the content of the free gift and participating in that training would be doing nothing to earn it, but rather that is what it would look like to receive it.

Click to expand...

So you agree that a non believer put his faith in something that has happened 2000 years ago, and that is sufficient for him to be justified.

Its not a minor belief as I will explain: I have never seen Jesus with my physical eyes, I have never seen the cross, nor saw him resurrected from the grave.

But I read or heard someone say Jesus died for my sins, and he rose again for my justification. I have never seen heaven nor hell but I believe in my heart that because God raised him from the dead, all my sins are now forever put away, and I am now God's child.

God the Father will honor the covenant he cut with Jesus the Son, and he will now see me as permanently justified.

Now its good to do good works, but it is important to know that following or not following the Law has zero impact on that justification. That to me is the main difference and that was what made David envy us, as quoted in Romans 4.

Guojing said:

So you agree that a non believer put his faith in something that has happened 2000 years ago, and that is sufficient for him to be justified.

Its not a minor belief as I will explain: I have never seen Jesus with my physical eyes, I have never seen the cross, nor saw him resurrected from the grave.

God the Father will honor the covenant he cut with Jesus the Son, and he will now see me as permanently justified.

Now its good to do good works, but it is important to know that following or not following the Law has zero impact on that justification. That to me is the main difference and that was what made David envy us, as quoted in Romans 4.

Click to expand...

Our salvation is from sin and sin is disobedience to God's law, so being trained by grace to live in obedience to God's law through faith is what salvation from living in disobedience to God's law looks like. So it is impossible to remove our need to repent and live in obedience to God's law from the concept of being saved from living in disobedience to it.

It is critically important to correctly understand the role of obedience to God's law so that we obey it for the right purposes and not for the wrong ones. If our obedience to God's law were for God's good, then our obedience would be about earning favor with God that He would owe us in return, however, God's law was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so our obedience has never been about earning favor with God, but rather it has always been about putting our faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live. In Romans 4:4, Paul was speaking against earning our justification by our works as though it were counted as our due, so that would be trying to obey it for the wrong purpose, but that doesn't abolish our need to obey it for the right purposes. In Romans 3:31, our faith does not abolish our need to obey God's law, but rather our faith upholds it.

Again, the same faith by which Abraham was justified was also expressed as obedience to God, but he was justified by his faith, and not by his obedience as though it were something that could be earned, but it would be incorrect to say that his obedience had zero impact on his justification:

James 2:21-22 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

So Abraham was justified by his works not as something he earned, but only insofar as his works were what his faith looked like.

But I read or heard someone say Jesus died for my sins, and he rose again for my justification. I have never seen heaven nor hell but I believe in my heart that because God raised him from the dead, all my sins are now forever put away, and I am now God's child.

Click to expand...

Do you agree that there is a difference in behavior between someone who believes these things and someone who does not? If so, then the difference is what that faith looks like. Even the demons believe that Jesus rose from the dead, so that doesn't do anyone any good if we don't understand how to apply what Jesus accomplished through his resurrection to how we should live their lives. Again, Titus 2:14 says that Jesus gave himself to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so those who were becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law were express a correct understanding (Acts 21:20). In 1 John 3:10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not children of God.

Soyeong said:

Our salvation is from sin and sin is disobedience to God's law, so being trained by grace to live in obedience to God's law through faith is what salvation from living in disobedience to God's law looks like. So it is impossible to remove our need to repent and live in obedience to God's law from the concept of being saved from living in disobedience to it.

It is critically important to correctly understand the role of obedience to God's law so that we obey it for the right purposes and not for the wrong ones. If our obedience to God's law were for God's good, then our obedience would be about earning favor with God that He would owe us in return, however, God's law was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so our obedience has never been about earning favor with God, but rather it has always been about putting our faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live. In Romans 4:4, Paul was speaking against earning our justification by our works as though it were counted as our due, so that would be trying to obey it for the wrong purpose, but that doesn't abolish our need to obey it for the right purposes. In Romans 3:31, our faith does not abolish our need to obey God's law, but rather our faith upholds it.

Again, the same faith by which Abraham was justified was also expressed as obedience to God, but he was justified by his faith, and not by his obedience as though it were something that could be earned, but it would be incorrect to say that his obedience had zero impact on his justification:

James 2:21-22 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

So Abraham was justified by his works not as something he earned, but only insofar as his works were what his faith looked like.



Do you agree that there is a difference in behavior between someone who believes these things and someone who does not? If so, then the difference is what that faith looks like. Even the demons believe that Jesus rose from the dead, so that doesn't do anyone any good if we don't understand how to apply what Jesus accomplished through his resurrection to how we should live their lives. Again, Titus 2:14 says that Jesus gave himself to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so those who were becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law were express a correct understanding (Acts 21:20). In 1 John 3:10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not children of God.

Click to expand...

But you are unable to say unequivocally that not following the Law will mean you lose your justification. Looks like you deliberately want to keep it vague.

Okay then, I think this exchange has reached its end point, we can agree to disagree.