Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Perhaps it not obedience per se but the motivation behind the obedience that results in obedience. The Pharisees were obedient but they missed the mark because of where their heart was set. Their focus was on their self not the well being of others. What they lacked was love.In Acts 5:32, the Spirit has been given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:1-5 denies that works of the law are part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to obedience to God's law. In Romas 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while Romans 3:31 says that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-11.
While it is true that Abraham believed God, so he was justified (Genesis 15:6), it is also true that he believed God, so he obeyed God's command to offer Isaac (Hebrews 11:17), so the same faith by which he was justified was also expressed as obedience to God, througgh he did no earn his justification by his obedience as a wage (Romans 4:1-5). In James 2:21-24, it quotes Genesis 15:6 to support saying that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered Isaac, his faith was active along with his works, and his faith completed his works, so he was justified by his works insofar as they were an expression of his faith. Likewise, in Galatians 3:7, those who are of faith are the children of Abraham, and in John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him, so again that is the way to have the same faith ss Abraham, and bring declared righteous is being declared to be someone who does what is righteous in obedience to God.
In Matthew 4:17-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is central to the Gospel message. Furthermore, that is in accordance with Jesus being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wicked ways (Acts 3:25-26) and the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), which he spread to those in Haran (Genesis 12:1-5). In Psalms 119:1-3, God's law is against how the children of Abraham knew how to be blessed by walking in God's way, do the way to inherit the promise through faith is by blessing the nations by teaching them how to walk in God's way in accordance with spreading the Gospel.
In regard to Galatians 3:10-13, in Deuteronomy 28, it describes the blessing of relying on God's law and the curse for not continuing to rely on it, so those who rely on works of the law instead of continuing to rely on God's law come under the curse of the law. Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 saying that the righteous shall live by faith with a quote from Leviticus 18:5 that the one obeys God's law will attain life by it, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to God's law, which is also in accordance with Isaiah 51:7, where the righteous are those on whose heart is God's law. God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so to obediently rely on what God has instructed is to rely on God, while to interpret this passage as saying that what God has instructed is not of faith is to deny the faithfulness of God.
The bless of Abraham comes to Gentiles through Jesus Christ by turning them from their wickedness and teaching them to obey God's law in accordance with the promise, with spreading the Gospel, and with receiving the Spirit through faith. Romans 3:28 is speaking about works of the law, not about God's law. To say that God is righteous is to say that He does what is righteous, so to be imputed with the righteousness of God is to be made into someone who does what is righteous, and God's law is the way to do what is righteous not the way to be imputed with the righteousness of God.
The Mosaic Covenant was made with the children of Abraham, so it is in accordance with promise made to Abraham concerning his children, not contrary to it, especially his children should be doing the same works that he did in accordance with the Mosaic Covenant.
In Romans 5:13, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted against us where there is no law, so the law was added to give us knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20). Christ did not come with the message that God's law has ended now that he has come so people need to stop repenting, but rather he came with the Gospel message in accordance with the promise calling for people to repent from disobeying it, so Galatians 3:19 should not be interpreted in a way that undermines everything that Christ taught.
In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through our obedience to God's law, but rather they testify that it comes through faith in Christ for all who believe, so this has always been the way that is testified about, not something that changed. Christ could not have ended keeping laws as a means of earning righteousness when God's law was never given as a means of doing that.
Furthermore, ending keeping laws as a means of earning our righteousness has nothing to do with the point Paul was making in the context of Romans 10:4. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him His ways that he might know Him and Israel too, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing God snd Jesus is the goal of the law, which is eternal life (John 17:3)
In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowing Him, so they failed to attain righteousness because they misunderstood the goal of the law by pursuing it as though righteousness were the result of their works rather than pursuing it as through righteousness were by faith in Christ, for knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Romans 10:5-10, this faith references Deuteronomy 30:11-16 in regard to saying that God's law is not too difficult to obey, that obedience to it brings life, in regard to what we are agreeing to do by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised him from the death. So again nothing in this passage has anything to do with ending any of God's laws, but just the oppposite
In Matthew 19:17 and Luke 10:25-28, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commanded. In Romans 2:6-7, eternal life is give to those who persist in doing good. According to Romans 6:19-23, obedience to God's law is the content of His gift of eternal life. In Hebrews 5:9, Jesus has become a source of eternal salvation for those who obey Him. In Revelation 22:14, those who obeyed God's commandments are given the right to eat from the Tree of Life. So while eternal life is not the result of obeying God's law, obeying it is intrinsically the content of God's gift of eternal life.
God's law is God's word and Jesus embodied God's law by living in sinless obedience to it, so he is God's word made flesh, and obediently having faith in God's word is the same as having faith in God's word made flesh.
The law brings us to Christ because it goal is to teach us how to know him, or in other words, how to have s relationship with him through faith. We are saved by faith in Christ and living in obedience to God's law is intrinsically the content of the gift of being saved from not living in obedience to it.
That was never the purpose of the law. Furthermore, someone who disregarded everything their schoolmaster taught them after they graduated would be missing the who point of a schoolmaster.
Every aspect of being children of God, in Christ, through faith, being children of Abraham, and heirs to the promise is all directly connected to living in obedience to God's law. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not children of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who ae in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. Im
In Genesis 18:19, Genesis 26:4-5, an Deuteronomy 30:16, all of the promise was made to Abraham and brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his children how to do that, and because his children did that. The fact that our salvation is 100% given as a gift does not mean that it does not require our participation through faith.
Christ it God's word made flesh, so he is not better than God's word.
Perhaps it not obedience per se but the motivation behind the obedience that results in obedience. The Pharisees were obedient but they missed the mark because of where their heart was set. Their focus was on their self not the well being of others. What they lacked was love.
True, love thy neighbor, but they were presented with the dilemma of what to do when someone breaks a commandment of God that was specifically commanded to be punished by death or by other means and had to choose between showing mercy or obeying and they made the wrong choice. Jesus exposed that mistake but before that they had no way of knowing which was more important before Christ’s ministry. They chose wrong.But "Love" is a Commandment of God. I always cringe a little when I hear someone say that the Pharisees were obedient to God. The following is how the Jesus of the Bible defines them.
The Pharisees were hypocrites who rejected the commandments of God so they might keep their traditions, they taught for doctrines the Commandments of men, not God. They placed burdens on the necks of men. They persecuted the Church of God, they turned God's Word into a religious business, and God's Temple into their business headquarters. They killed innocent people, including the Christ and Stephen, and they were like their fathers who killed the Prophets God sent to them. Jesus said Moses gave them God's Law, but they didn't keep them. He told us the Pharisees father was the devil. That they convert others to their religion, and turn them into worse children of the devil than themselves.
And yet, many modern preachers in this world God placed me in, actually preach that the Pharisees were trying to "earn" Salvation by keeping God's Laws "to the letter". That they were "Living by the Laws of Moses".
For the life of me, I cannot find any righteous reason why a preacher would preach that the Pharisees were obedient to God, given what is actually written about them. I get their religious business included the sale of animals for sacrifices, and that they were still promoting sacrificial "works of the law" for remission of sins. As Jesus also implied. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
I mean, even atheists follow some of God's Laws.
Anyway, I always cringe when I hear about the obedience of the Pharisees, so my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
Nor does true Biblical understanding participate in setting one verse against another in God's word, for all of it is true, including Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14, and is correctly understood only in harmony with itself.I don't participate in the popular religious tradition of using one verse to make others void
You did not explain who the logos is that "became flesh and dwelt among us," to whom John testifies "was God" (Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14).which may not align with a particular religious sect or philosophy. The Scriptures I posted did not contradict the scriptures you posted, in my view. Only in your religion. I did address John 1:1, 14.
Is 48:16 refersto the Lord of history, the helper of Israel (YHWH, I am the LORD thy God), announcing the advent of Cyrus and his mission (Is 41:25-27), Cyrus being a type of Christ (Is 61:1).Gen. 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Is. 48: 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
Yes, the NT reveals the following set of relationships:
As it appears you do not believe the testimony of authoritative NT apostolic teaching in Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14, that the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14), who was God (Jn 1:1), which "was God" you will not unequivocally avow. . .and which is why I stated in the first place that there is no reason to continue.And again;
63. 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
It appears you don't believe in this Christ. If this is the case, then yes, perhaps there is no reason to continue.
But (to my knowledge) neither have you acknowledged that he is God.I don't hold such a position to "Own". I have never said such a thing, nor suggested that Jesus wasn't divine or isn't a Deity. I simply believe my Savior, my Redeemer, should be afforded the respect due to Him, to define Himself, and I have chosen to believe HIM.
I posted His Words in which HE defined Himself and the God that sent Him. The God HE Himself told me was the One True God. And now, because I posted His Own Words of Him defining who HE is, in both the Old and New Testaments, I am accused by you of denying His Divinity.
But it's OK, Jesus told me it would be this way if I believed in Him.
Good.Goodness no. God already inspired and gave you all the Prophets you need in the Holy scriptures. I am simply posting their words.
Is that how you interpret scripture? As though each passage is only what it is in and of itself? That other passages don't help define what is said in the others? I'm not accusing you here, but countering that which you seem to think @Clare73 is doing. Any Scripture bears on what the rest of Scripture says, and the rest of Scripture bears on what any Scripture says.I don't participate in the popular religious tradition of using one verse to make others void which may not align with a particular religious sect or philosophy.
As much as you might wish to escape Clare's onslaughts without losing face, attacking her by implying yourself to have the only true and exclusive knowledge does your argument no good. And yes, there I am accusing you. I can only hope that I have misunderstood you.63. 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
It appears you don't believe in this Christ. If this is the case, then yes, perhaps there is no reason to continue.
Valid point. He denies what orthodoxy says it means, but does not supply a valid explanation of what it does mean. He just leaves it there, as if it is of no importance.You did not explain who the logos is that "became flesh and dwelt among us," to whom John testifies "was God" (Jn 1:1, J 1:14).
Nor do you understand that the second divine person of the Trinity is God the Son, as the first divine person of the Trinity is God the Father, and third divine person of the Trinity is God the Holy Spirit of both the God the Father and God the Son.
Do you understand that divine means God, and only God's nature?
Yikes! Exposed even more...Valid point. He denies what orthodoxy says it means, but does not supply a valid explanation of what it does mean. He just leaves it there, as if it is of no importance.
Not just orthodoxy. . .Jesus is God also in Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14.Valid point. He denies what orthodoxy says it means, but does not supply a valid explanation of what it does mean. He just leaves it there, as if it is of no importance.
True, love thy neighbor, but they were presented with the dilemma of what to do when someone breaks a commandment of God that was specifically commanded to be punished by death or by other means and had to choose between showing mercy or obeying and they made the wrong choice. Jesus exposed that mistake but before that they had no way of knowing which was more important before Christ’s ministry. They chose wrong.
Thanks, from the cheap seats on this thread.'Bout time you got some help.
So we know Zacharias sinned, because all men have sinned. But because his sin was not held against him, as he was considered by the Spirit of Christ who inspired Luke, as both "Righteous, and Blameless", we know a higher power intervened.
Both of these were written after Christ’s ministry. Christ brought the gospel to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles. Yes Jesus corrected them by quoting the scriptures but take the adulterous woman for example. God specifically commanded that adulterers were to be put to death. Now in this specific case that was brought before Jesus the Pharisees couldn’t do that until they found the other accomplice and brought them before the court but regardless of this fact Jesus showed mercy and used this example to teach them the importance of mercy. Before He revealed this to them they had no way of knowing that mercy was even permittable. Yes they were commanded to love their neighbor but they were also specifically commanded to execute adulterers as well as for several other offenses. King David slaughtered thousands and yet he was favored by God. So this brought to question just who exactly is meant by the word “neighbor”? The Jews had a lot of problems defining what exactly was meant by God’s commandments. Like the issue of working on the Sabbath for example. The Jews had to define what exactly was considered to be work and in doing so they overreacted and ended up forbidding things that were never intended to be considered work or were not intended to be forbidden on the Sabbath. You have to realize that the Jews had been executing people for these offenses for over a thousand years with no correction or reiteration from God. God had never revealed to them that what they were doing was incorrect, He never rebuked them for it until Christ came.Paul said differently.
Rom. 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
And again; by the Hebrews author.
Heb. 4: 1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
So the teaching that they had no way of knowing how to treat others, isn't supported by the Holy Scriptures. And Jesus exposed their Error, by quoting the Oracles of God that they were given, but didn't believe.
But (to my knowledge) neither have you acknowledged that he is God.
How God deals with his own, kind of reminds me of what happened with my mother (a concert pianist in her own right), when she decided to study under a maestro whose playing she thought very well of. He listened to her play, and even smacked the back of her hands with a ruler, for taking liberties with interpreting what was written. Had her in tears, mercilessly forcing her to play precisely as was written. She didn't understand why he wanted her to play so 'woodenly', but she held out for months, continuing anyway, trusting that he had his reasons, until one day he screamed at her something like, "WHAT ARE YOU —A ROBOT??" I can tell you, when he was done with her, she was twice the pianist she had been before.Both of these were written after Christ’s ministry. Christ brought the gospel to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles. Yes Jesus corrected them by quoting the scriptures but take the adulterous woman for example. God specifically commanded that adulterers were to be put to death. Now in this specific case that was brought before Jesus the Pharisees couldn’t do that until they found the other accomplice and brought them before the court but regardless of this fact Jesus showed mercy and used this example to teach them the importance of mercy. Before He revealed this to them they had no way of knowing that mercy was even permittable. Yes they were commanded to love their neighbor but they were also specifically commanded to execute adulterers as well as for several other offenses. King David slaughtered thousands and yet he was favored by God. So this brought to question just who exactly is meant by the word “neighbor”? The Jews had a lot of problems defining what exactly was meant by God’s commandments. Like the issue of working on the Sabbath for example. The Jews had to define what exactly was considered to be work and in doing so they overreacted and ended up forbidding things that were never intended to be considered work or were not intended to be forbidden on the Sabbath. You have to realize that the Jews had been executing people for these offenses for over a thousand years with no correction or reiteration from God. God had never revealed to them that what they were doing was incorrect, He never rebuked them for it until Christ came.
Nor does true Biblical understanding participate in setting one verse against another in God's word, for all of it is true, including Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14, and is correctly understood only in harmony with itself.
Likewise, you are not realizing that In Greek philosophy--the Gentile "Greeks" being for whom John's gospel is written (Jn 20:31)--logos was the First Cause, the great Intelligence and Reason behind the universe. John opens his gospel with the astounding claim that the recently despised and crucified carpenter, Jesus of Nazareth, is the eternal logos, source of all wisdom and power, who became flesh in order to reveal God to us:
You did not explain who the logos is that "became flesh and dwelt among us," to whom John testifies "was God" (Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14).
Nor do you understand that the second divine person of the Trinity is God the Son, as the first divine person of the Trinity is God the Father, and third divine person of the Trinity is God the Holy Spirit of both God the Father and God the Son.
Do you understand that divine means God, and only God's nature?
In historical orthodox Christianity, denial of the divine Trinity of the Godhead is the heresy of sects.
Is 48:16 refersto the Lord of history, the helper of Israel (YHWH, I am the LORD thy God), announcing the advent of Cyrus and his mission (Is 41:25-27), Cyrus being a type of Christ (Is 61:1).
Yes, the NT reveals the following set of relationships:
God the Son does the will of God the Father (Jn 5:23, Jn 5:36, Jn 5:43), and
God the Holy Spirit does the will of both God the Son and God the Father (Jn 14:16, Jn 15:26, Jn 16:7), they all being the one God,
God the Son being sent by God the Father (a person doesn't send oneself, but sends a separate person), and
God the Holy Spirit being sent by both God the Son and God the Father, they being three separate divine persons in the one being God, and Jesus (God the Son) being God the Holy Spirit (2 Co 3:17-18).
As it appears you do not believe the testimony of authoritative NT apostolic teaching in Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14, that the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14), who was God (Jn 1:1), which "was God" you will not unequivocally avow. . .and which is why I stated in the first place that there is no reason to continue.
Here, apparently you didn't read my post. I'll post it again.
"I don't hold such a position to "Own". I have never said such a thing, nor suggested that Jesus wasn't divine or isn't a Deity. I simply believe my Savior, my Redeemer, should be afforded the respect due to Him, to define Himself, and I have chosen to believe HIM."
These are precisely those statements to which I was referring. What statement of yours did I miss that demonstrates acknowledgement that Jesus is himself God?The Jesus of the Bible wanted me to know the One True God, and Himself, the Rock of Israel, The Christ Jesus, who God, His Father and my Father, Sent to save me.
Both of these were written after Christ’s ministry. Christ brought the gospel to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles.
Yes Jesus corrected them by quoting the scriptures but take the adulterous woman for example. God specifically commanded that adulterers were to be put to death. Now in this specific case that was brought before Jesus the Pharisees couldn’t do that until they found the other accomplice and brought them before the court but regardless of this fact Jesus showed mercy and used this example to teach them the importance of mercy.
Before He revealed this to them they had no way of knowing that mercy was even permittable.
Yes they were commanded to love their neighbor but they were also specifically commanded to execute adulterers as well as for several other offenses. King David slaughtered thousands and yet he was favored by God. So this brought to question just who exactly is meant by the word “neighbor”? The Jews had a lot of problems defining what exactly was meant by God’s commandments.
Like the issue of working on the Sabbath for example. The Jews had to define what exactly was considered to be work and in doing so they overreacted and ended up forbidding things that were never intended to be considered work or were not intended to be forbidden on the Sabbath.
Oh my goodness. My friend, did they not have the Law and Prophets which teach against their very religious traditions and practices? Did God not send them Prophets to correct them? "Rising early and sending them"? And what did they do? Did they not kill the Prophets that God sent to correct them?You have to realize that the Jews had been executing people for these offenses for over a thousand years with no correction or reiteration from God. God had never revealed to them that what they were doing was incorrect, He never rebuked them for it until Christ came.
Mark Quayle said:
But (to my knowledge) neither have you acknowledged that he is God.
These are precisely those statements to which I was referring. What statement of yours did I miss that demonstrates acknowledgement that Jesus is himself God?
But do you, or do you not admit to the deity of Christ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?