Dispensationalism is not new

[Biblewriter]

Many disparage Dispensationalism by claiming it was never taught before around 1830 or so. But I have written a book proving that Dispensational doctrine was indeed taught in some of the very oldest surviving Christian documents that touch on the subject, and continued to be taught at least up to the fifth century. This book, which is titled "Ancient Dispensational Truth," is now available for online ordering from Dispensational Publishing House.

 

[BABerean2]

Many disparage Dispensationalism by claiming it was never taught before around 1830 or so. But I have written a book proving that Dispensational doctrine was indeed taught in some of the very oldest surviving Christian documents that touch on the subject, and continued to be taught at least up to the fifth century. This book, which is titled "Ancient Dispensational Truth," is now available for online ordering from Dispensational Publishing House.

Did some down through the history the Church believe that Jews would one day return to the land and turn back to God?
Yes.

Before the year 1820, did those same people believe that Jews would come to salvation outside of the Church, during a future time?
No.

It is this second point which is one of the chief errors of modern Dispensational Theology.

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern Dispensational Theology falls apart.

How much of this new book addresses the fulfillment of the New Covenant?

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Did some down through the history the Church believe that Jews would one day return to the land and turn back to God?
Yes.

Before the year 1820, did those same people believe that Jews would come to salvation outside of the Church, during a future time?
No.

Neither they nor any modern Dispensationalists ever taught that. But both the ancient and the modern Dispensational teachers taught that the restoration of the Jews to a true faith in their God would take place AFTER the church was "suddenly caught up."

 

[BABerean2]

Dispensational teachers taught that the restoration of the Jews to a true faith in their God would take place AFTER the church was "suddenly caught up."

You have been making this same claim about Irenaeus, based on what most would consider a very "selective" reading of his writings.

Dispensationalist Grant Jeffrey also selectively quoted from the Early Church Fathers in an attempt to cover up their posttrib viewpoints, and convert them to his pretrib viewpoint.

The recent history of modern Dispensational Theology is revealed by Brethren historian F.R. Coad, in his 1966 paper found in the link below.

Well known Dispensationalist Dr. Charles Ryrie also connected the doctrine to the conferences at Albury, out of which the Irvingite movement grew.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
PDF Files


Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_23.pdf


Pretribulationist Revisionism
(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_22.pdf


Your personal efforts to disconnect the modern doctrine from the historical written record have been quite remarkable.


.

 

[jgr]

Neither they nor any modern Dispensationalists ever taught that. But both the ancient and the modern Dispensational teachers taught that the restoration of the Jews to a true faith in their God would take place AFTER the church was "suddenly caught up."

How does "AFTER" not qualify as "outside of"?

 

[Soyeong]

Many disparage Dispensationalism by claiming it was never taught before around 1830 or so. But I have written a book proving that Dispensational doctrine was indeed taught in some of the very oldest surviving Christian documents that touch on the subject, and continued to be taught at least up to the fifth century. This book, which is titled "Ancient Dispensational Truth," is now available for online ordering from Dispensational Publishing House.

What is important is not whether the Bible uses a particular phrase or when that phrase was coined, but whether that phrase refers to something that is taught in the Bible, which is not the case for Dispensationalism because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Dispensationalism is harmful because it leads people to try to blame an unchanging God for changing instead of leading them to repent of the fact that they have changed.

 

[~Zao~]

What is important is not whether the Bible uses a particular phrase or when that phrase was coined, but whether that phrase refers to something that is taught in the Bible, which is not the case for Dispensationalism because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Dispensationalism is harmful because it leads people to try to blame an unchanging God for changing instead of leading them to repent of the fact that they have changed.

Coining phrases is a study in itself. Beginning with Genesis. Dispensationalism is the many covenants that God processed through to arrive at the new covenant. It's just the jargon that differs.

 

[Soyeong]

Coining phrases is a study in itself. Beginning with Genesis. Dispensationalism is the many covenants that God processed through to arrive at the new covenant. It's just the jargon that differs.

All of God's covenants are made with the same God with the same ways. If the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness changed between any of His covenants, then His righteousness would not be eternal, but God's righteousness and all of His righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:142, 160).

 

[Biblewriter]

What is important is not whether the Bible uses a particular phrase or when that phrase was coined, but whether that phrase refers to something that is taught in the Bible, which is not the case for Dispensationalism because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Dispensationalism is harmful because it leads people to try to blame an unchanging God for changing instead of leading them to repent of the fact that they have changed.

Actually, the Bible itself very clearly shows that God has indeed changed the ways He related to mankind several times in the past, and explicitly declares that He will change these ways again in the future.

 

[Biblewriter]

All of God's covenants are made with the same God with the same ways. If the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness changed between any of His covenants, then His righteousness would not be eternal, but God's righteousness and all of His righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:142, 160).

The entire book of Galatians was given to refute this doctrine as false.

 

[~Zao~]

All of God's covenants are made with the same God with the same ways. If the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness changed between any of His covenants, then His righteousness would not be eternal, but God's righteousness and all of His righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:142, 160).

There seems to be a glitch in the notifications. The first covenant was with Adam, then Noah, David ... so yes the same God in the progression that He revealed Himself to believers.

 

[Biblewriter]

Did some down through the history the Church believe that Jews would one day return to the land and turn back to God?
Yes.

Before the year 1820, did those same people believe that Jews would come to salvation outside of the Church, during a future time?
No.

It is this second point which is one of the chief errors of modern Dispensational Theology.

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern Dispensational Theology falls apart.

How much of this new book addresses the fulfillment of the New Covenant?

.

The remarkable thing about what I have posted is the HARD PROOF accompanying those posts.

 

[Soyeong]

Actually, the Bible itself very clearly shows that God has indeed changed the ways He related to mankind several times in the past, and explicitly declares that He will change these ways again in the future.

Actually, the Bible clearly states in Malachi 3:6 that God changes not. Again, Psalm 119:160 it clearly says that all of God's righteous laws are eternal. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God has commanded, so anyone who has tried to do that needs to repent. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for him was if they taught against obeying what He commanded. So according to God we should not listen to anyone who tries to say that He has changed His ways.

The entire book of Galatians was given to refute this doctrine as false.

Paul was a servant of God, not his enemy, so Galatians was not written for that purpose. In Romans 3:31, Paul said that our faith does not abolish our need to obey the Law, but rather our faith upholds it, so your faith should also uphold it, and you should not interpret him as seeking to do the opposite. Furthermore, we must obey God rather than man, so if you think that Paul was speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then you should be quicker to disregard what he said than to disregard what God commanded.

 

[Soyeong]

There seems to be a glitch in the notifications. The first covenant was with Adam, then Noah, David ... so yes the same God in the progression that He revealed Himself to believers.

I agree that God has progressively revealed His plan of redemption throughout the Bible. However, that is different from saying something like it once was in accordance with God's righteousness to help the poor, but not that is no longer the case, or it once was sinful to commit murder, but now that is no longer the case. God's righteousness is eternal and unchanging, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness and to refrain from sin are also eternal and unchanging and will always be valid regardless of which covenant we are under, even for those who are not in a covenant relationship with God.

 

[iamlamad]

Actually, the Bible clearly states in Malachi 3:6 that God changes not. Again, Psalm 119:160 it clearly says that all of God's righteous laws are eternal. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God has commanded, so anyone who has tried to do that needs to repent. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for him was if they taught against obeying what He commanded. So according to God we should not listen to anyone who tries to say that He has changed His ways.



Paul was a servant of God, not his enemy, so Galatians was not written for that purpose. In Romans 3:31, Paul said that our faith does not abolish our need to obey the Law, but rather our faith upholds it, so your faith should also uphold it, and you should not interpret him as seeking to do the opposite. Furthermore, we must obey God rather than man, so if you think that Paul was speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then you should be quicker to disregard what he said than to disregard what God commanded.

Soyeong; How long has it been since you sacrificed a sheep? Or are you living a sinless life - in spite of what 1 John tells us?

 

[Biblewriter]

I agree that God has progressively revealed His plan of redemption throughout the Bible. However, that is different from saying something like it once was in accordance with God's righteousness to help the poor, but not that is no longer the case, or it once was sinful to commit murder, but now that is no longer the case. God's righteousness is eternal and unchanging, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness and to refrain from sin are also eternal and unchanging and will always be valid regardless of which covenant we are under, even for those who are not in a covenant relationship with God.

In pretending that Paul taught that it was necessary to obey the law, you are wresting his words, and in challenging his authority as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, you are denying that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.


1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Galatians 3:1-6

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:10-14

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Galatians 3:19-25


9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. Galatians 4:9-11


21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Galatians 4:21-31

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. 7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. Galatians 5:1-8


I have simply answered you with the exact words of scripture. But this entire discussion of entirely off the subject for this thread, which is not whether or not Dispensationalism is correct, but how long it has been taught.

 

[Soyeong]

In pretending that Paul taught that it was necessary to obey the law, you are wresting his words, and in challenging his authority as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, you are denying that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Paul's position is clearly stated in Romans 3:31, so there is no pretending or wresting of his words needed on my part. It is I who believe in Paul's authority as an Apostle of Jesus Christ and believe that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, whereas it is those who interpret him as speaking against obeying what God has commanded who bring his authority and the inspiration of his writings into question. If you believe that all OT Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching and correction (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then that is primarily inclusive of the Mosaic Law.

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Galatians 3:1-6

Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23) and the Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of Christ. Likewise, in Romans 15:18-19, Paul's Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed, so he was on the same page as Jesus about teaching repentance from our sins, while you need to repent of teaching a different Gospel.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:10-14

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law, so obedience to God's instructions is about having faith in Him to guide us in how to rightly live, which means that God's Law is of faith. Likewise, in Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law that was of works with a law that was of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's Law, so again it is of faith. So in Galatians 3:10-14, Paul was speaking about works of the law, which are not of faith and contrasting it with the Book of the Law, which is of faith. In Deuteronomy 30:15-20, obedience to the Law brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so being set free from the curse of the Law is being set free from living in disobedience to it so that we can be free to enjoy the blessing of the Law.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Galatians 3:19-25

Having no more need for a tutor is not at all the same as having no more need to live by what they taught you. Someone who disregarded everything that their tutor taught them after they left would be completely missing the whole point of a tutor. Now that Christ has come we have a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His Law in accordance with what Christ taught by word and by example.

9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. Galatians 4:9-11

In Galatians 4:8, Paul addressed these verses to those who formerly did not know God, also known as former pagans. As such, they were not formerly keeping God's holy days and thus Paul could not have been criticizing them for returning to them. Furthermore, Paul would never have referred to the holy, righteous, and good commandments of God as being weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, but rather that is again how he referred to paganism. So whatever he was referring to in verse 10 is within the context of returning to paganism, not in regard to speaking against obeying God.

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Galatians 4:21-31

Ishmael was born through a lack of faith in God to bring about the seed that He promised and is a product of the flesh, so he represents trying to bring about what God has promises through your own effort, which is what the influencers were trying to get Gentiles to do. While Hagar represents the Mosaic Covenant, Sarah does not represent the New Covenant, but rather she represents the covenant promise made to Abraham that all the nations would be blessed through his seed. The law given at Sinai and the New Covenant are both part and parcel of the promise given to Abraham, but the promise is superior because it was given first under no conditions. So Paul was comparing the Mosaic Covenant with the promise given to Abraham. This has everything to do with non-Jews and how they would enter into the promise of God, not through their own effort, not through works of the law, and not through becoming Jews, but through the promise given to Abraham of a seed represented by Sarah.

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

The reason that God saved the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt was not in order to put them under bondage to His Law, but as Galatians 5:1 states, it is for freedom that God sets us free, and God's Law is a law of freedom (Psalms 119:45), while it is sin in transgression of God's Law that puts us in bondage (John 8:34).

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. 7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. Galatians 5:1-8

All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to obey His Law and even Christ began his ministry with that message, so it would make no sense to interpret Paul as warning people against doing that and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we follow Christ. Again, the issue in Galatians was with works of the law, not with God's Law.

I have simply answered you with the exact words of scripture. But this entire discussion of entirely off the subject for this thread, which is not whether or not Dispensationalism is correct, but how long it has been taught.

While we both agree that Scripture is true, simply quoting the exact words of Scripture is not at all the same as having a correct understanding of them. If you think that Galatians contradicts Romans 3:31 and other verses, then one or both of us has an incorrect understanding of those verses, so you need to do more than simply quote Scripture in order to refute my position, though I understand if you would prefer not to go that direction in this thread. In my opinion, whether something is true is far more important than how long it has been taught.

 

[Soyeong]

Soyeong; How long has it been since you sacrificed a sheep?

In the same way that the Sabbath should only be followed when it is the 7th day, instructions in regard to temple practice should only be followed when there is a temple in which to practice them along with a Levitical priesthood to preside over it.

Or are you living a sinless life - in spite of what 1 John tells us?

If an earthly father gives instructions to their children in order to bless them and to teach them how to rightly live and not in order to curse them, then that is that much more true for our Heavenly Father. He is not an unloving Father or some sort of tyrant who gave the Law in order to curse His children, but rather He said that He gave the Law for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24). In Deuteronomy 11:26-32, the curse is not for those who fail to have perfect obedience, but only for those who chased after other gods. While everyone in the OT sinned and fell short of perfect obedience, everyone being under God's curse does not reflect the reality of what is recorded about those who served God, but only those who chased after other gods.

The Law itself came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned, so perfect obedience was never the requirement and has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Law and of God's character. It makes God out to be interested in us having a perfect outward performance when He has always been interested in the condition of our hearts and has always disdained it when His people honored Him with their lips while their hearts were far from Him (Isaiah 29:13). If we needed perfect obedience, then there would be no point in repentance because it would already be too late, yet the consistent message of the prophets up to and including Jesus was to repent from our sins and to return to obedience to God's Law, so the need to continue to practice repentance has always been key. It's about choosing this day whom we will serve: God or other gods.

 

[Biblewriter]

If an earthly father gives instructions to their children in order to bless them and to teach them how to rightly live and not in order to curse them, then that is that much more true for our Heavenly Father. He is not an unloving Father or some sort of tyrant who gave the Law in order to curse His children, but rather He said that He gave the Law for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24). In Deuteronomy 11:26-32, the curse is not for those who fail to have perfect obedience, but only for those who chased after other gods. While everyone in the OT sinned and fell short of perfect obedience, everyone being under God's curse does not reflect the reality of what is recorded about those who served God, but only those who chased after other gods.

The Law itself came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned, so perfect obedience was never the requirement and has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Law and of God's character. It makes God out to be interested in us having a perfect outward performance when He has always been interested in the condition of our hearts and has always disdained it when His people honored Him with their lips while their hearts were far from Him (Isaiah 29:13). If we needed perfect obedience, then there would be no point in repentance because it would already be too late, yet the consistent message of the prophets up to and including Jesus was to repent from our sins and to return to obedience to God's Law, so the need to continue to practice repentance has always been key. It's about choosing this day whom we will serve: God or other gods.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2:10

 

[Soyeong]

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2:10

In James 2:1-10, he was speaking to people who had already sinned, 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 to do a better job of obeying the Law more consistently by not showing favoritism.