IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?

[Leaf473]

These two passages book-end the Davidic Kingdom Law of the Sermon on the Mount: This is Law-Keeping.

Matthew 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 7:24-27 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon the rock: and the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house: and it fell not, for it was founded upon the rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house: and it fell, and great was the fall of it.

Deuteronomy 18:18-19 says that Jesus is the prophet like unto Moses... because both promote Law-Keeping.

Yes, and within those bookends:
Therefore, whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

 

[ozso]

Another thing is I don't know if your answer to this question is Yes or No.

I virtually never get a straightforward answer to straightforward yes or no type question, when it comes to this type of theology. Trying to obtain one is like pulling teeth as the saying goes.

 

[Leaf473]

I virtually never get a straightforward answer to straightforward yes or no type question, when it comes to this type of theology. Trying to obtain one is like pulling teeth as the saying goes.

It reminds me of years ago when I used to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses a lot.

One of the things I wonder is When people don't give straight answers, are they aware that they're doing it?

I suppose it might vary from one person to the next.

###########
Edit to add: I'm aware that at times I don't give a straight answer. Usually it's because I perceive the question to be structured so as to give the wrong impression.

And I'm also aware that at other times I don't answer. That can happen if the question doesn't relate to the train of thought I'm interested in exploring. Or if, say, the post contains ten questions. In that case, I may only answer one or a few, at least to start with.

 

[expos4ever]

deleted own post.

 

[expos4ever]

It is only through love that we can obey God's law *see 1 John 5:2-3; John 14:15 and love is expressed in obedience to Gods' law.

Ok, let's look at these texts.

1 John 5:2-3

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and follow His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

Given that God has given many commandments other than the 10 commandments (and the Law of Moses more broadly), and given the possibility that some of these commandments may be "retired", you have more work to do: you need to make an actual case that, in this test, the writer is intending that we understand these "commandments" as including the 10 commandments.

John 14:15

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Exact same argument applies.

 

[expos4ever]

I virtually never get a straightforward answer to straightforward yes or no type question, when it comes to this type of theology. Trying to obtain one is like pulling teeth as the saying goes.

One obvious sign that a person really does not have a strong case is that they will distract and overwhelm a la Gish Gallop:

The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

Many times the arguments express "correct" information in the hope that barraging the reader with reams of correct material will mask the fact that the matter on the table is being evaded.

 

[Ligurian]

Yes, and within those bookends:
Therefore, whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

For me, the context is the key.

Matthew 7:7-13 Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in Heaven give good things to them that ask Him? Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

People act like that last verse is a catch-all. It's not. It only applies to that one item on the list of Kingdom Laws... otherwise, none of the rest would need to be said. It's not ALL of the Law and the Prophets.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

One obvious sign that a person really does not have a strong case is that they will distract and overwhelm a la Gish Gallop:

The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

Many times the arguments express "correct" information in the hope that barraging the reader with reams of correct material will mask the fact that the matter on the table is being evaded.

To be honest, isn't this what you have been doing here? You still have not addressed any of the content of my posts to you that have been provided as a help to you that show the scripture contexts you have left out of the scriptures you have been quoting that are in disagreement with your teachings of lawlessness (my meaning here of course being a teaching of no law or God's law being abolished) while in my view making strawman argument by micro-quoting my posts that are taken out of their context to the rest of my posts to you. I would like to have a friendly discussion with you but it is hard when you ignore my posts that have only been provided in love as a help to you.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Ok, let's look at these texts.

1 John 5:2-3

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and follow His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

Given that God has given many commandments other than the 10 commandments (and the Law of Moses more broadly), and given the possibility that some of these commandments may be "retired", you have more work to do: you need to make an actual case that, in this test, the writer is intending that we understand these "commandments" as including the 10 commandments.

John 14:15

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Exact same argument applies.

Here let me help you with this one dear friend. According to the scriptures Jesus, Paul, James and John are all in agreement that God's two great commandments of love to God and love to man are linked directly to Gods' 10 commandment.

For example Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40 is quoting the two great commandments of love to God and our fellow man from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 when he says in Matthew 22:40 "On these two great commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Paul agreeing with Jesus in Romans 13:8-10 say that loving our neighbor as our self is simply a summary of obeying those laws in God's 10 commandments that show us our duty of love to our fellow man in Exodus 20:12-17.

While James is also in agreement with Jesus and Paul when he says that we cannot show partiality in love to our fellow man and demonstrated this by quoting God's 10 commandments and stating that if we fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself, we do well but if we have respect to persons, we commit sin, and are convicted of the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if you commit no adultery, yet if you kill, you are become a transgressor of the law. *James 2:8-11.

Then we have John who is also in agreement with Jesus, Paul and James who defines love as obeying God's commandments when he says "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous in 1 John 5:2-3 which agrees with Jesus when he says elsewhere that "If you love me keep my commandments" in John 15:14. Therefore love to God and man according to the scriptures is not separate from obeying Gods' commandments. Love is expressed in keeping them.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I virtually never get a straightforward answer to straightforward yes or no type question, when it comes to this type of theology. Trying to obtain one is like pulling teeth as the saying goes.

According to the scriptures, many do not want to hear straight answers from the scriptures (e.g Isaiah 6:9-10; Matthew 13:15-16 and Acts of the Apostles 28:26-27). Lets all pray (I include myself) that we do not harden our hearts to hearing, seeing, believing and following what Gods' Word says.

 

[Clare73]

Under what covenant was Melchesidic a priest of God? Couldn't have been after Moses. There was a covenant between God and Adam, and there was a covenant between God and Noah. That covenant did not change until the covenant with Abraham. Prior to that change Abraham lived at the time of Melchesidic.
That change spoken of, change in what? It says there was a change in the law.
It changed from the Levitical law to something else. It didn't revert back to the Aaronic law because Aaron is specifically excluded by Hebrews 7:11.

The Levitical law and the Aaronic law are the same law; i.e., the Mosaic law, both Moses and Aaron being from the tribe of Levi.

The Levitical/Aaronic/Mosaic law was changed to the law of Christ (Matthew 22:37-40), which is God's law (1 Corinthians 9:21), obedience to which thereby fulfills the Mosaic law "and whatever other commandment there may be." (Romans 13:8-10)

 

[HIM]

____________

I think they are saying that we don't have to keep the law in order to be saved. And I agree with that.

But when I say "law keeping theology" I mean the idea that not keeping some set of laws from Genesis to Deuteronomy is sin.

Hi there friend, so you believe and teach sin is different from what is taught in the Pentateuch? If so, what is sin to you?

 

[HIM]

The Levitical law and the Aaronic law are the same law; i.e., the Mosaic law, both Moses and Aaron being from the tribe of Levi.

The Levitical/Aaronic/Mosaic law was changed to the law of Christ (Matthew 22:37-40), which is God's law (1 Corinthians 9:21), obedience to which thereby fulfills the Mosaic law "and whatever other commandment there may be." (Romans 13:8-10)

If you mean does when you say fulfills then yes

 

[HIM]

The Levitical law and the Aaronic law are the same law; i.e., the Mosaic law, both Moses and Aaron being from the tribe of Levi.

The Levitical/Aaronic/Mosaic law was changed to the law of Christ (Matthew 22:37-40), which is God's law (1 Corinthians 9:21), obedience to which thereby fulfills the Mosaic law "and whatever other commandment there may be." (Romans 13:8-10)

There is no Law OF Christ mentioned in any of those text you shared. Jesus is repeating from Pentateuch in Matthew 22 And the Mosaic Law is the Law of God

 

[expos4ever]

According to Paul God's law does not bring death, sin does because we all have sinned and the wages of sin is death.

Paul clearly implicates the Law as bringing death:

But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came with glory so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law

..for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me

but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died;

Be wary, dear reader, of what I suspect will happen now. Those who believe the law is not an agent in bringing about death will deploy one or both of the following strategems:

1. They will present arguments that, while likely very true, will artfully evade dealing with Paul's statements, above. It is almost as if they are saying this: given these other things I have shown you that Paul is saying, we can ignore these texts.

2. They will bend Paul's actual words out of shape. For example, consider the concept of "sin coming to life when the commandment came, and I died". While this clearly implicates the law as playing a role in the death that results, attempts will be made to force this to say something that completely eliminates any such role. That is a step too far - it amounts to saying "Paul, you did not choose your words carefully, you must mean something else".

 

[Leaf473]

Hi there friend, so you believe and teach sin is different from what is taught in the Pentateuch? If so, what is sin to you?

Hi HIM, how's it going?

Sin for a Christian is not following commandments like Love one another as I have loved you or living a lifestyle that grows the works of the flesh and suppresses the fruit of the Spirit.

 

[expos4ever]

These two passages book-end the Davidic Kingdom Law of the Sermon on the Mount: This is Law-Keeping.....

Maybe I have not followed the whole conversation, but I will chime in. Yes, Jesus is commanding us to do certain things. And if you want to say that such commands constitute a type of "law", I have no objection.

However, Jesus is not, in these texts anyway, telling us to follow the Law of Moses (including the 10).

He tells His contemporaries to follow the Law of Moses in other texts, but I happen to believe that He knows that the Law of Moses will end at the cross.

 

[expos4ever]

I want to address this line of reasoning from another poster:

According to Paul God's law does not bring death, sin does because we all have sinned and the wages of sin is death

The problem here is that we "unpack" the reasoning we see from Paul elsewhere in the New Testament, he clearly assigns some responsibility for our "death" to the Law.

Here is the point: Yes, it is certainly true that the wages of sin, yes sin, is death; however, this is not fully exculpatory for the law - the law is an "accessory" in all this, per the texts in my post 135, for example.

So the true claim that sin bring death might seem to get the Law off the hook. But that no more gets Law off the hook than the fact the getaway driver did not actually rob the banks gets him off the hook.

 

[HIM]

Hi HIM, how's it going?

Sin for a Christian is not following commandments like Love one another as I have loved you or living a lifestyle that grows the works of the flesh and suppresses the fruit of the Spirit.

It goes well. How about you?
And that includes His commandments and statutes written in the book of the law, being in our hearts and mind as described in the New covenant and laid out the first time in Deut. 29:1 and Deut. 30:10-14

 

[Leaf473]

It goes well. How about you?
And that includes His commandments and statutes written in the book of the law, being in our hearts and mind as described in the New covenant and laid out the first time in Deut. 29:1 and Deut. 30:10-14

My heart beats weird. Other than that, great! Thanks for asking.

So... The terms of the Covenant and the book of the law spoken of in Deuteronomy, is that
all of the laws God gave through Moses starting at Sinai (or even before),
or is that laws from just a certain place such as Horeb?