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.
Well that is not true. Are you not the one claiming Gods' 10 commandments have been now been abolished in the new covenant?I have never said there is no law.
Did that.See 1 Corinthians 9:21.
Actually, 1 Corinthians 9:21 states: (I became) "to the ones without law as without law, not being without (the) law of God but under (the) law of Christ." (Nestle text)Did that.
It does not say the law of Christ it says it says, lawful to Christ.
Koine Greek was the common Greek spoken during the NT.Or mind you subject to the jurisdiction of or to Christ as the BDAG Lexicon puts forth in regards to the Greek word ennomos. The BDAG is the go to for understanding the Ancient Greek.
The ABP Bible translates it correctly. As does Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, the English Majority Text Version, the Literal Standard version, and Modern Literal Version to name a few. As you go about to find all the translations that agree with what you have put forth mind you please what was shared in from the BDAG. Below is the citation from the BDAG for your convenience.
Take care
Please stop your demonstrably false statements - I have never, repeat never, declared that we are not subject to some law.Well that is not true.
I am indeed claiming this.Are you not the one claiming Gods' 10 commandments have been now been abolished in the new covenant?
Well I do not agree with that, and believe I have never posted anything that suggests that, this side of the cross, love is expressed through obedience to the 10 commandments, or any other element of the Law of Moses.If you agree that love is expressed in obedience to Gods' law as shown through the scriptures earlier, than what is your argument now? - You have none.
I have already provided an argument that it is plausible to read Romans 3:31 as Paul saying that we "establish" or "uphold" the law in the specific sense of endorsing its indispensable role in God's broader redemptive plan even though role has come to an end.As Paul says Gods 10 commandments are not abolished through faith it is ESTABLISHED through faith that works by love (see Romans 3:31...
I suggest you have not made this case at all in the sense that you have not actually addressed the argument this role of the law comes to an end at the cross as I have argued in detail.As posted and shown from the scriptures already all the law does is to show give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing when obeyed) and evil (moral wrong doing when disobeyed)
You must of missed as I did that the BDAG agrees with your preference of the Alexandrian text which uses the genitive case. I do not. But that is neither here nor there when we consider how the word is to be understood grammatically as laid forth inActually, 1 Corinthians 9:21 states: (I became) "to the ones without law as without law, not being without (the) law of God but under (the) law of Christ." (Nestle text)
Koine Greek was the common Greek spoken during the NT.
As well you should not agree with that.Well I do not agree with that, and believe I have never posted anything that suggests that, this side of the cross, love is expressed through obedience to the 10 commandments, or any other element of the Law of Moses.
You're much too kind in your appellation of it.I want to address a form of evasion that I believe some are engaging in.
Welcome to the determined strategy to obfuscate the Scriptures without ever directly addressing them.When challenged, they will respond with material, often a lot of it, that effectively avoids dealing with the challenge.
Let me be more concrete with an example:
I (who believe the 10 no longer apply) have argued that Romans 3:20 - that declares that the law gives knowledge of sin - describes what was true before the cross. Central to my argument is that right after verse 20, we get this:
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed....
My point is that the "but now" clearly indicates a transition from what was the case to what is now the case
When someone responds to this argument, they must, repeat must, at least in order to be credible, be able to complete this sentence:
"Therefore, the "but now" in verse 21 does not leave verse 20 in the past because.....<insert reasons>."
Do you see what I mean? Unless the respondent can complete this sentence, they are evading the challenge I have posed.
This works both ways. And I have risen to this challenge with respect to Romans 3:31 by posting variations of this:
The establishment of the Law in verse 31 need not entail believing the law remains in force because to "establish the law" can plausibly entail endorsing its indispensable role in God's broader redemptive plan without committing to the position that the Law remains in force.
Arguments need to be engaged in their own terms. Often posters will provide arguments that may have their own merits but that do not actually deal with the specifics of the text they have been challenged with.
Already covered.Not in the Nestle Greek text.
It does not say the law of Christ it says, lawful to Christ. Or mind you subject to the jurisdiction of or to Christ as the BDAG Lexicon puts forth in regards to the Greek word ennomos. The BDAG is the go to for understanding the Ancient Greek.
The ABP Bible translates it correctly. As does Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, the English Majority Text Version, the Literal Standard version, and Modern Literal Version to name a few. As you go about to find all the translations that agree with what you have put forth mind you please what was shared from the BDAG.
You must of (must’ve) missed as I did that the BDAG agrees with your preference of the Alexandrian text which uses the genitive case. I do not. But that is neither here nor there when we consider how the word is to be understood grammatically as laid forth in The BDAG as shared above.
I agree. One problem that those who think we need the external code is this: they effectively eviscerate the "written on the heart" metaphor of all its meaning, flattening it into a triviality whereby we merely internalize (or memorize) the commandments.it's about love now governing the heart because the law has now been written on it, and one no longer needs an external code to know know how to obey the law, for Holy Spirit love gives them to know these things.
I agree. One problem that those who think we need the external code is this: they effectively eviscerate the "written on the heart" metaphor of all its meaning, flattening it into a triviality whereby we merely internalize (or memorize) the commandments.
Let me try to elaborate. The whole notion of something being "written on the heart" entails that the thing in question be "knowable" my means other than appealing to an external referent.
Correct, that is not what "written on the heart" means.What the position of those who think the 10 remain in force have to buy into is the notion that all that has happened is that "words on stone tablets" have been "copy-pasted" into our brains.
That hardly honors the rich meaning we ascribe to
the concept of something being written on the heart.
I have addressed Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7 over and over again. The reader is invited to decide which set of arguments are most convincing.Therefore Gods' 10 commandments are the standard of if someone is loving God or their fellow man and also leads us to Christ when we break them that we might be forgiven through faith *Galatians 3:22-25 to be made free from sin and walk in His Spirit....
The issue here regardless what camp one finds themselves in is Most are unteachable because of thinking they know something and or if one has perceived themself intelligent. And we all want the arguments to be in our own terms. Anyway….I want to address a form of evasion that I believe some are engaging in. When challenged, they will respond with material, often a lot of it, that effectively avoids dealing with the challenge.
Let me be more concrete with an example:
I (who believe the 10 no longer apply) have argued that Romans 3:20 - that declares that the law gives knowledge of sin - describes what was true before the cross. Central to my argument is that right after verse 20, we get this:
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed....
My point is that the "but now" clearly indicates a transition from what was the case to what is now the case
When someone responds to this argument, they must, repeat must, at least in order to be credible, be able to complete this sentence:
"Therefore, the "but now" in verse 21 does not leave verse 20 in the past because.....<insert reasons>."
Do you see what I mean? Unless the respondent can complete this sentence, they are evading the challenge I have posed.
This works both ways. And I have risen to this challenge with respect to Romans 3:31 by posting variations of this:
The establishment of the Law in verse 31 need not entail believing the law remains in force because to "establish the law" can plausibly entail endorsing its indispensable role in God's broader redemptive plan without committing to the position that the Law remains in force.
Arguments need to be engaged in their own terms. Often posters will provide arguments that may have their own merits but that do not actually deal with the specifics of the text they have been challenged with.
I certainly agree that many people are unteachable. But I take issue with your last statement in that it seems to imply there is no "objective" standard of what constitutes responsible debate. But that is not really true - there is a general consensus on the principles of responsible debate. And one such principle is the one I enumerated - people should engage the arguments of others, not dance around them, drowning the reader with other material that, while perhaps valid, does not engage the argument.The issue here regardless what camp one finds themselves in is Most are unteachable because of thinking they know something and or if one has perceived themself intelligent. And we all want the arguments to be in our own terms. Anyway….
Which is subjective on your part. In other words you have set a standard in which you perceived has not been met. Yet if the other is asked they will tell you that that they have addressed said issue and you just don’t like the answer. Anyway I don’t wish to continue in this discourse. But It was prompted by your comments. If you continue just know i won’t. I see no point in it. But if wish to address the rest of the post You responded to I am looking forward to it.I certainly agree that many people are unteachable. But I take issue with your last statement in that it seems to imply there is no "objective" standard of what constitutes responsible debate. But that is not really true - there is a general consensus on the principles of responsible debate. And one such principle is the one I enumerated - people should engage the arguments of others, not dance around them, drowning the reader with other material that, while perhaps valid, does not engage the argument.
I am sorry but I believe this does not work. Let's say we agree that in verse 31 the present tense is being used. So what? The very logic of the "but now" phrase certainly seems to require that the stuff that precedes the "but now" phrase lies in the past.So to answer your question, ”Therefore, the "but now" in verse 21 does not leave verse 20 in the past because.....<insert reasons>." Because We establish the law through faith is being stated as a fact in the present tense. An on going process that is indicative to us who possess the Faith in which is being spoken of.
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?