Law, Grace, Kingdom

[Studyman]

Where does he say this?

Rom. 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

The Christ, before HE became a man also teaches this.

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

As HE also teaches those who HE cleansed after HE became a man.

John 5: 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

The prince of this world has always promoted the irrelevance of God's Laws. But His Faithful always walked in them. At least, according to the Holy Scriptures.

 

[expos4ever]

No, if we are going to be clear, then we must be honest. Paul says transgression of God's LAW still brings death. And Paul says; Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Are all of the commands of God in the Law of Moses? Obviously not.

You guys never stop on this - you assume that phrases like "commandments of God" necessarily include the Law of Moses.

And yet it is clear that God certainly has issued commands that are not part of the Law of Moses.

In your claim "God's Law is no longer in force", you must ignore, reject and omit the entire Law and Prophets that Paul said was written specifically for the Body of Christ, under God's New Priesthood.

Where did Paul ever say the Law was written specifically for the Body Of Christ? Certainly not here:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter

I suspect I am not the only reader who will be fascinated to read how you reconcile your claim that Paul believes that the Law was written for the Body of Christ with the fact that we no longer "serve in the oldness of the Letter".

 

[expos4ever]

Rom. 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

This does not say anything about the Law of Moses - you are reading that in.

The Christ, before HE became a man also teaches this.

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

This does not say anything about the Law of Moses.

But let me concede, at least for now, that these transgressions from this Ezekiel text are indeed reckoned against the Law of Moses. Then. you are basically arguing using this logic:

1. Jesus is God
2. God gave the Law of Moses for people to follow
3. Therefore, Jesus is teaching us to keep the Law of Moses

Using this reasoning, I could argue thusly:

1. Jesus is God
2. God instructed the slaughter of the Amorites
3. Therefore, Jesus wants us to slaughter any Amorites that happen to be hanging around.

As HE also teaches those who HE cleansed after HE became a man.

John 5: 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

Where is there a reference to the Law of Moses? You appear to assume the very thing you need to make a case for. That is, you appear to assume that sin can only be reckoned against the Law of Moses.

That is good news for all those born before the Law was given - they are, according to "your religion" to use your debating tactic - apparently off the hook.

 

[Studyman]

Are all of the commands of God in the Law of Moses? Obviously not.

I asked you once to show me the Commands of God which were not given us through Moses. You completely ignore my question. I'll ask again, where is it written that God has Commandments, He refrained from giving to Moses and Abraham's Children?

You guys never stop on this - you assume that phrases like "commandments of God" necessarily include the Law of Moses.

By "you guys", I expect you are speaking to those who believe what is written in scriptures, over the doctrines and religious traditions of men which exist in the world God places us in.

EVERY COMMANDMENT Moses gave to the people, were "Commandments of God". Moses didn't create even ONE LAW.

EX. 4: 15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.

Num. 12: 6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

So this is the point of my posts. You have been convinced of things about God and HIS Word which are not true, Jesus called this "Deceived". Things like "the Law of Moses and God's Law are not the same" or implying that God withheld some of His Commandments from Moses and Abraham's Children in Egypt, but because you are somehow more special than they, HE gave them to you. And when asked to show us these phantom "Commandments of God" that were not given to or through Moses and to the Children of Israel, you cannot do so.

All I'm advocating, is to consider what if Jesus was right, and His people need to "take heed" they are not convinced of things about God which are not true taught by religious men who come in His Name.

And yet it is clear that God certainly has issued commands that are not part of the Law of Moses.

If it is clear, you should be able to tell us what they are. But when I ask, you deflect. So please, show me these Commands issued by God that are not part of the Torah.

Where did Paul ever say the Law was written specifically for the Body Of Christ?

1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

1 Cor. 9: 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

1 Cor. 10: 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12 Wherefore (Because of this) let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Rom. 4: 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

There is a lot more, but it seems this is enough to prove that Paul is certainly teaching the Body of Christ under God's New Priest, that the Law and Prophets were written specifically for them.

Certainly not here:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter

LOL, I don't think you have really thought to much about the religious philosophy you have adopted and are promoting. Even in man's Law, if you steal something, which is against the Law, there is a penalty, maybe fines and jail time. But if the penalty is paid, you are "Released from the law" by which you were bound. You are now "FREE" to serve as a "lawful" person, the condemnation (Jail time) that came with your stealing has been removed. Paul tells you this very thing, if you would just listen to him.

Rom. 6:15 What then? shall we sin (Steal), because we are not under the law, (in jail) but under grace ( debt is paid) ? God forbid.

Why would Paul say this? Because Stealing is against the Law. It was against the Law before you were born. It will be against the Law after you are gone. It is a Commandment of God, and transgressing it, is considered by the Christ of the Bible, as "SIN".

The deceiver wants you to believe God took "Stealing" off the list of Sins when Paul said "Released from the law". When the truth is, we were released from the penalty for breaking the law, so we could be free to Serve God in Righteousness and true holiness.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

The Law is still there.

Gal. 5: 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, (God's Law) fornication, (God's Law) uncleanness, (God's Law) lasciviousness, (God's Law) 20 Idolatry, (God's Law) witchcraft, (God's Law) hatred, (God's Law) variance, (God's Law) emulations, (God's Law) wrath,(God's Law) strife, (God's Law) seditions, (God's Law) heresies, (God's Law) 21 Envyings, (God's Law) murders, (God's Law) drunkenness, (God's Law) revellings, (God's Law) and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Why does Paul teach this to the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile under God's New Priesthood Covenant? Because the Commandments of God are still in force.

I suspect I am not the only reader who will be fascinated to read how you reconcile your claim that Paul believes that the Law was written for the Body of Christ with the fact that we no longer "serve in the oldness of the Letter".

LOL, "Serving in the oldness of the letter" would mean you remain dead in your trespasses.

 

[expos4ever]

I asked you once to show me the Commands of God which were not given us through Moses. You completely ignore my question. I'll ask again, where is it written that God has Commandments, He refrained from giving to Moses and Abraham's Children?

Romans 5:13

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law

Now let's work through the logical implications of this:

- Sin was in the world before the Law of Moses was given
- Sin is not "charged" in the absence of at least some law.
- Presumably we agree that before the Law of Moses was given, people were indeed "charged" with sin.
- Therefore, there must have been some "law" in force before the Law of Moses.

Besides, we get explicit commands from God prior to the Law of Moses:

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;n 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,"

This is a command from God, isn't it? And it certainly is not part of the Law of Moses.

And then we get this from Jesus:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This goes beyond the Law of Moses - I challenge you to find anything in the Law of Moses that explicitly says "looking lustfully" constitutes sin.

And this, also from Jesus:

I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another

Is Jesus mistaken? If this "commandment" is really in the Law of Moses, why is Jesus declaring that it is new?

 

[Studyman]

This does not say anything about the Law of Moses - you are reading that in.

Again, Moses never gave even ONE Law. He spoke the Word's God placed in his Mouth. At least that is what the Scriptures teach.

Rom. 6: 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but "yield yourselves" unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

I'm not reading anything into the Scriptures. It's just that your religious philosophy is not founded in them.

This does not say anything about the Law of Moses.

Mark 7: 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jesus, Paul and I all understand that God gave Moses the Word's he spoke to the People. Someone, who came in Christ's name, has convinced you otherwise. Certainly, Jesus believed God gave Moses HIS Laws and feasts and judgments.

The Jesus of the Bible said you probably won't be persuaded of this basic Biblical Truth.

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

It is still my hope you might reconsider.

But let me concede, at least for now, that these transgressions from this Ezekiel text are indeed reckoned against the Law of Moses. Then. you are basically arguing using this logic:

1. Jesus is God

Jesus is the Christ, the Holy One of Israel that Israel forsook, who became Flesh and dwelled among us.

2. God gave the Law of Moses for people to follow

God instructed the Christ, the Light of this world, to use Moses for the purpose of leading the Children of Abraham out of sin, and teaching them the "Way of the Lord".

3. Therefore, Jesus is teaching us to keep the Law of Moses

Therefore, Jesus and Paul instruct men to obey the Commandments of God, that HE gave us through Moses, and this same Christ and the Prophets of Old, also instructed.

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Using this reasoning, I could argue thusly:

No, you are not using this "reasoning". You still refuse to acknowledge who "Inspired" the Holy Scriptures. To justify your adopted religious sect, you are implying that "Moses" Inspired the Law and Prophets. When Paul, Jesus and all the Faithful examples in the bible understood it was GOD, the God of Abraham that Inspired the Law and Prophets.

If you used this reasoning, we would be in agreement.

1. Jesus is God
2. God instructed the slaughter of the Amorites

Jesus said to eat His Flesh too. Just because you don't understand the Scriptures, doesn't make them of none effect. Paul explains why you don't understand them in his letter to the Romans.

Rom. 1: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Paul said that even the least of the Commandments "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn." was written for "Our Sakes no doubt". Even if I don't have an Ox or grain, this LAW was still written "For my admonition".

Because your heart is darkened, you have no clue as to why God instructed the utter destruction of Pagan Nations, and what it means for the Body of Christ, in God's New Priesthood Covenant.

3. Therefore, Jesus wants us to slaughter any Amorites that happen to be hanging around.

Yes, you "Could argue thusly" and it seems you do. In my view, this is a perfect representation of "but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," And is also the reason why I stopped listening to establishment religions of this world. Can you not see the utter foolishness of your post? That the Christ gave the commandment so we would kill Amorites hanging around. And you are here preaching to others about God. Have you no fear or respect of God at all?

Where is there a reference to the Law of Moses? You appear to assume the very thing you need to make a case for. That is, you appear to assume that sin can only be reckoned against the Law of Moses.

Again, Moses never made even ONE LAW. Your argument is baseless and foolish, and the Bible easily proves as much all over the place.

That is good news for all those born before the Law was given - they are, according to "your religion" to use your debating tactic - apparently off the hook.

You have yet to ever meet someone who was born "before the LAW was given".

 

[expos4ever]

By "you guys", I expect you are speaking to those who believe what is written in scriptures, over the doctrines and religious traditions of men which exist in the world God places us in.

Nice sermon.

EVERY COMMANDMENT Moses gave to the people, were "Commandments of God". Moses didn't create even ONE LAW.

Stawman, I never claimed otherwise.

So this is the point of my posts. You have been convinced of things about God and HIS Word which are not true,

Begs the question - I could say the same thing of you.

Jesus called this "Deceived". Things like "the Law of Moses and God's Law are not the same" or implying that God withheld some of His Commandments from Moses and Abraham's Children in Egypt, but because you are somehow more special than they, HE gave them to you.

Strawman - I never said anything like this. I have acknowledged what I see as the clear New Testament teaching that the Spirit is a kind of inner moral compass that can help the believer determine right from wrong. Are you suggesting that the Spirit is incapable of doing this?

And when asked to show us these phantom "Commandments of God" that were not given to or through Moses and to the Children of Israel, you cannot do so.

Please refer to previous post.

All I'm advocating, is to consider what if Jesus was right, and His people need to "take heed" they are not convinced of things about God which are not true taught by religious men who come in His Name.

Again, begs the question.

 

[Studyman]

Romans 5:13

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law
Now let's work through the logical implications of this:

- Sin was in the world before the Law of Moses was given

But wait a minute here. There is no mention of the "Law of Moses" here. Isn't that kind of hypocritical for you to engage in the same practice you accuse me of?

Let me ask you are question and let's see of you will answer. Was satan in the world in the very beginning?

- Sin is not "charged" in the absence of at least some law.

Why was Adam and Eve ushered out of the garden and "Charged"? Why did God flood the world? Why was Sodom destroyed? Of course, you will not answer.

- Presumably we agree that before the Law of Moses was given, people were indeed "charged" with sin.

In your religion, did God's Laws exist before Moses was born?

- Therefore, there must have been some "law" in force before the Law of Moses.

Gen. 26: 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Yes, God's Laws, Statutes, Judgments and commandments existed before God gave them to Abraham's Children through Moses.

Besides, we get explicit commands from God prior to the Law of Moses:

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;n 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,"

This is a command from God, isn't it? And it certainly is not part of the Law of Moses.

But it is God's LAW, Yes? And if you were placed in the Garden of Eden today, would this LAW of God not be in force?

And then we get this from Jesus:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. This goes beyond the Law of Moses - I challenge you to find anything in the Law of Moses that explicitly says "looking lustfully" constitutes sin.

Matt. 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Prov. 6: 20 My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: 21 Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. 22 When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee. 23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: 24 To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. 25 "Lust not after her beauty in thine heart;" neither let her take thee with her eyelids. 26 For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.

And this, also from Jesus:

I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another

Is Jesus mistaken? If this "commandment" is really in the Law of Moses, why is Jesus declaring that it is new?

The Pharisees, or their fathers Jesus referred to as "Them of Old Time" in Matt. 5, didn't teach the "Weightier matters" of the Laws of God, at least according to the Jesus of the Bible. So it was new to the People who had adopted the Jews religion. But this same Christ taught as much as the Rock of Israel.

Lev. 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

The faithful knew these Truths.

1 John 3: 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Scriptures mean something, even if men don't believe them, in my view.

 

[expos4ever]

1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Again, no reference to the Law of Moses - you appear to simply assuming that the category "the commandments of God" include the Law of Moses. But there is clearly no necessity that this is the case - "commandments of God" could refer to commands from God that are not part of the Law of Moses. What's more, we know that Paul believes the Law is no longer in force:

6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

What is your response to this text? Are you, like many of your peers, going to redefine "released from the Law" to mean "released only from the consequences if you break the law but you are still obligated to fully follow it"?

Imagine being told I have been "released from a law that required me to do 100 pushup every morning" and then being told that I am still obligated to do the pushups.

That is, frankly, absurd.

1 Cor. 9: 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

This is a reasonable objection, but I do not think it establishes your point. When I say that the Law of Moses has been set aside, I am not suggesting that all the principles that underlie it are set aside. Obviously, I am not going to suggest that it is ok to covet, for example. You may counter that I am trying to have it both ways. That is, you may say that for me to say the Law is set aside, on the one hand, but that its foundational principles are retained, on the other, is a contradiction.

Well, I do not think that objection really works. For example, imagine there is a comprehensive law called the "United States Law Governing Personal Conduct" which contains a myriad of rules like "don't murder", "don't covert", and "don't lie". Now suppose that, for whatever reason, the government simply abolishes this law since the government believes that the principles of the law are so deeply ingrained in hte minds of the people that the Law is no longer needed. Has the Law been abolished? I would say it has, even if the principles that underlie it live on.

In any event, we know that Paul believes that the Law has been set aside - the only way out of this requires such butchery of Paul's words that such a position cannot be taken seriously by those committed to the principle of Biblical inerrancy.

 

[Studyman]

Again, no reference to the Law of Moses - you appear to simply assuming that the category "the commandments of God" include the Law of Moses. But there is clearly no necessity that this is the case - "commandments of God" could refer to commands from God that are not part of the Law of Moses.

Jesus said Moses gave the Law. You are free to promote another gospel if you like.

What's more, we know that Paul believes the Law is no longer in force:

6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

What is your response to this text? Are you, like many of your peers, going to redefine "released from the Law" to mean "released only from the consequences if you break the law but you are still obligated to fully follow it"?

Imagine being told I have been "released from a law that required me to do 100 pushup every morning" and then being told that I am still obligated to do the pushups.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. (The soul that sins shall die) 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held;

"The soul that sins (Steals) shall die." That is the Letter of the Law God gave the world through Moses that holds a Sinner. That is the LAW men need delivered from "being dead wherein they are held".

It's absurd to preach to others that God delivered you from or you "needed" to be delivered from "Thou shall not steal".

This is a reasonable objection, but I do not think it establishes your point. When I say that the Law of Moses has been set aside, I am not suggesting that all the principles that underlie it are set aside.

No, and neither did satan, nor its children the Pharisees. All religions of this world quote and use "SOME" of God's Word and underlying principles. How could they deceive a believer unless they quoted at least "some" of God's Laws. So I never believed that you were laying aside "ALL" of God's underlying principles, because you don't.

Obviously, I am not going to suggest that it is ok to covet, for example.

But you are preaching to the world that there is no longer a consequence for Coveting. That is the foundation of your religious philosophy.

You may counter that I am trying to have it both ways. That is, you may say that for me to say the Law is set aside, on the one hand, but that its foundational principles are retained, on the other, is a contradiction.

It is a contradiction. Paul is telling the New converts both Jew and Gentile that What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Why does Paul need to know the Law of Moses where "Thou shall not Covet" is given by God to His People? He tells you if you could only believe him. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

Well, I do not think that objection really works. For example, imagine there is a comprehensive law called the "United States Law Governing Personal Conduct" which contains a myriad of rules like "don't murder", "don't covert", and "don't lie". Now suppose that, for whatever reason, the government simply abolishes this law since the government believes that the principles of the law are so deeply ingrained in hte minds of the people that the Law is no longer needed. Has the Law been abolished? I would say it has, even if the principles that underlie it live on.

You are free to create or adopt your own religion as men have done since the beginning. I am here to have a discussion about what the scriptures actually say.

In any event, we know that Paul believes that the Law has been set aside - the only way out of this requires such butchery of Paul's words that such a position cannot be taken seriously by those committed to the principle of Biblical inerrancy.

You believe and preach that. Not Paul, though you accuse him of such things. I prefer to let Paul define his own belief.

Acts 26: 13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

 

[Gary K]

Sin is against God's nature and God's nature is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His nature are eternally valid, such as with God's righteousness being eternal meaning that any instructions that God has given for how to avoid doing what is unrighteous are eternally valid, for example, it will always be sinful to commit adultery.

We should seek to understand the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus taught in accordance with how its audience understood it. Again, in Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which Jesus prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14), which he commissioned his disciples to teach to the nations (Matthew 28:16-20), which is in accordance with Jesus being set in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26), which is the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), which he taught to those in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5). Thinking that Gentiles don't need to obey the Torah would mean that Gentiles do not need to believe the Gospel message and the promise, which is missing the whole point of what the Bible is essentially about.

2 Corinthians 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

There are many verses say that obedience to God's law brings life, that the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it, and that the New Covenant involves obeying it, so obeying the letter such as in Romans 7:6 should not be understood as correctly doing what God has instructed. On other other hand, correctly doing what God has instructed leads to death, then that would mean that God is misleading us and therefore that we should not have faith in Him. In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, but contrasted that with the law of sin which held him captive, so Romans 7:6 should not be interpreted as Paul speaking about being released from doing what he delighted in doing, but about being released from the influence of the law of sn that held him captive.

Sorry to interupt your thread.

I just wanted to congratulate you on your recent acceptance of righteousness by faith.

I've been reading some of the threads you've been posting on.

 

[Soyeong]

Sorry to interupt your thread.

I just wanted to congratulate you on your recent acceptance of righteousness by faith.

I've been reading some of the threads you've been posting on.

I’ve always supported righteousness by faith, so what is it about some of the threads that I have been posting on that leads you to erroneously think that my acceptance of it has been recent?

 

[expos4ever]

Even in man's Law, if you steal something, which is against the Law, there is a penalty, maybe fines and jail time. But if the penalty is paid, you are "Released from the law" by which you were bound.

This, again, amounts to redefining concepts. When you are released from a law, you are released from it no one - except you guys, of course would every say that to be released from a law means you still have to keep it. You are redefining concepts to make them fit your position. And what about "not serving according to the letter". Again, you are forced to violently redefine words - to "serve according to a law" means to live in accordance with its prescriptions. You are implicitly redefining "not serving according to the letter" to mean "not being condemned by the law, but still needing to follow it".

As much as such redefinitions serve your purpose, they are entirely illicit moves.

And, understandably, you are silent, at least to this point, I believe on the marriage metaphor that Paul uses to set up his statement about "release from Law". In that metaphor Paul writes about a woman who was married to someone who, yes, dies, and then she is free to marry another.

I suggest a neutral person would not put 2 and 2 together and conclude, once we reach verse 6, that the Law has died and we are now free to embrace the Spirit.

Or put it this way: on your take that we are still to follow the Law, how does that line up with Paul's metaphor about a woman who is released from marital obligations? It appears to me that you are saying she is effectively still married and is not, in fact, free to marry another.

At the end of the day, no person without a motive would read "released from law X" and take it to mean "still obligated to follow X".

And I suggest we all know this.

 

[expos4ever]

Paul tells you this very thing, if you would just listen to him.

Rom. 6:15 What then? shall we sin (Steal), because we are not under the law, (in jail) but under grace ( debt is paid) ? God forbid.

Why would Paul say this? Because Stealing is against the Law. It was against the Law before you were born. It will be against the Law after you are gone. It is a Commandment of God, and transgressing it, is considered by the Christ of the Bible, as "SIN".

The irony here is substantial as Romans 6:15 is the last text you want to post as it actually undermines your position:

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under the Law but under grace. 15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under [p]the Law but under grace? Far from it!

It seems that are so used to twisting the concept of "not being under the law" to make it mean "not being subject to the penalties of law but still needing to obey it" that you think this text supports your position.

The greek word rendered as "under" as in "under" the law has this definition:

5259 hypó (a preposition) – properly, under, often meaning "under authority" of someone working directly as a subordinate (under someone/something else).

Under the authority of the Law - to no longer being under the authority of the Law means not having to follow it! That's what it means to be under the authority of something - to be bound to obey. You guys are forced to make "under the authority of" mean "subject to punishment by".

Those who argue the Law is still in force do this sort of thing all the time: you redefine words:

- "released from the Law" gets changed to "not condemned by the Law"
- "no longer serving the letter of the law" gets changed to "no longer condemned by the Law"
- "ordnances" in Eph 2:15 gets changed to "human ordances" when we know that the greek work can indeed refer to divine ordnances (I can make the case if you do not believe me)
- "the law" gets changed to "the law of Judaism (meaning man-made laws) - there is an SDA poster who specializes in this maneuver.

Here in Romans 6:15, you equate being "under Law" to being "in jail". Well, I am not in jail, but I am certainly under the authority of the laws where I live.

 

[expos4ever]

The deceiver wants you to believe God took "Stealing" off the list of Sins when Paul said "Released from the law".

Again with the sermonizing - your unsubstantiated implication that I have fallen prey to Satan's trickery will not convince anyone who is thinking seriously about these matters.

When the truth is, we were released from the penalty for breaking the law, so we could be free to Serve God in Righteousness and true holiness.

Fine, if you wish to redefine "released from" to mean "released only from the penalty but still otherwise required to fully obey", I will let neutral readers judge how plausible such a move is. And I would remind such readers to examine the marriage metaphor that Paul uses right before he declares that we are "released from the Law". In that metaphor, a woman is released from an obligation to a now deceased husband and is now free to marry someone else.

Based on your take, the metaphor gets jangled into this odd scenario where the woman still has all sorts of obligations to her dead husband - remember, you are telling us that thought we are released from the Law, we are still obligated to follow it. Is that woman then really free to marry another?

The Law is still there.

Gal. 5: 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, (God's Law) fornication, (God's Law) uncleanness, (God's Law) lasciviousness, (God's Law) 20 Idolatry, (God's Law) witchcraft, (God's Law) hatred, (God's Law) variance, (God's Law) emulations, (God's Law) wrath,(God's Law) strife, (God's Law) seditions, (God's Law) heresies, (God's Law) 21 Envyings, (God's Law) murders, (God's Law) drunkenness, (God's Law) revellings, (God's Law)

You are taking a page right out of the playbook of another poster who systematically adds his own words to holy writ.

Lest any neophytes be misled, you are adding "God's Law" (with the implication that God's Law has to equal the Law of Moses) repeatedly to this text. However, it is obviously possible to be guilty of all these things in the absence of the Law of Moses. If you deny this, you are effectively denying the possibility that God could reveal moral truths directly to us via the prompting of the Holy Spirit. And that notion is countered by this:

But I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I am leaving; for if I do not leave, the [e]Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world regarding sin, and righteousness, and judgment:

Nobody, least of all me, is denying that all these things (e.g. witchcraft, idolatry, etc.) are prohibited by the Law of Moses. But that obviously does not mean that these things can only be considered to be sin in specific reference to the Law of Moses. I am a Canadian, and if an when I murder someone here in Canada, my conviction has absolutely nothing to do with US law.

LOL, "Serving in the oldness of the letter" would mean you remain dead in your trespasses.

Really? I am sure it will be very interesting to see you explain taking the concept "not serving the law" and making it mean "not under the condemnation of the law". It is true that words, such as "serve", have a "semantic range" - a range of allowing meanings. Thus for example, "cat" can refer to furry feline pet, or it could refer to a nasty woman. But it you cannot call a bicycle a cat. I suggest it is rather self-evident that "to not serve according to" does not have a semantic range that includes "not condemned by".

 

[expos4ever]

Again, Moses never gave even ONE Law. He spoke the Word's God placed in his Mouth. At least that is what the Scriptures teach.

Rom. 6: 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but "yield yourselves" unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

I'm not reading anything into the Scriptures. It's just that your religious philosophy is not founded in them.

Let me ask a blunt, clear, and precise question: Where, exactly, is there anything in this text from Romans 6 that refers explicitly or implicitly to the Law of Moses?

Mark 7: 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jesus, Paul and I all understand that God gave Moses the Word's he spoke to the People.

Your last statement is a strawman - I never posted anything that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I do not believe that Jesus and Paul believe the Law comes from God. The question, of course, is whether the law continues after the cross. And nothing in this text requires us to believe such a thing.

I, and others, have repeatedly conceded that the Law remains in force up to the Cross. So although you might accuse me of playing games, the fact that Jesus affirms the law to His contemporaries, at least here, does not contradict what I am saying - if the Law is still in effect until the cross, as I believe it is, it is perfectly reasonable for Jesus to instruct people to follow the Law.

However, things are a little more complex - we know from Mark 7 that Jesus challenges the kosher food laws (part of the Law of Moses), notwithstanding the desperate acts of exegetical histrionics we see as people try to argue that He was only talking about handwashing.

Now then, you have also misrepresented me. I posted this:

This does not say anything about the Law of Moses.

...in specific response to this from you:

The Christ, before HE became a man also teaches this.

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

I NEVER stated, as your reply suggest, that Mark 7:9-10 do not refer to the Law of Moses.

Someone, who came in Christ's name, has convinced you otherwise.

Really? And, prithee who might that be? How do you know I have not reached my conclusion using nothing but the old noggin?

 

[expos4ever]

Here is a line of reasoning that I claim entails bad logic and is incorrect:

1. Jesus is God
2. God gave the Law of Moses for people to follow
3. Therefore Jesus is teaching us to follow the Law of Moses

The problem is obvious: while we presumably all agree that (1) and (2) are true, item (3) does not necessarily follow - it could be the case that Jesus knows that God's plans have moved on and that while the Law was indeed given in the past (item 2), it no longer applies.

Unless there are other grounds for establishing that the Law is eternal, I modestly suggest that it is irrefutable that the logic of the above argument fails.

Now then, what response has been offered to this line of reasoning? Well, with respect to item 2, we are told this:

God instructed the Christ, the Light of this world, to use Moses for the purpose of leading the Children of Abraham out of sin, and teaching them the "Way of the Lord".

Yes, so? This decidedly does not prove that the Law is eternal - perhaps, in the fulness of time, God has chosen choose a different way to "lead us out of sin. So this rejoinder to my point 2 does no work to undermine my argument.

In response to my item 3, we get this:

Therefore, Jesus and Paul instruct men to obey the Commandments of God, that HE gave us through Moses, and this same Christ and the Prophets of Old, also instructed.

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

How does this prove that Jesus wants us to keep the Law of Moses in the 21st century? Are "commandments of God" necessarily the Law of Moses? Of course not! Jesus gives us commands that are not in the Law of Moses. And how this Bible verse accomplish anything toward showing that the Law of Moses has to apply in our day?

 

[Studyman]

This, again, amounts to redefining concepts. When you are released from a law, you are released from it no one - except you guys, of course would every say that to be released from a law means you still have to keep it. You are redefining concepts to make them fit your position.

I posted Paul's own Words. If I kill someone, the consequence for this action "BY LAW" is death. If someone else pays the penalty for me, I am released from the LAW which calls for my death. I am not released from the Commandment, "thou shall not kill". To preach such a thing is foolishness.

Rom. 7: 5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were "by the law", did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, (Alive) and not in the oldness of the letter. (The soul that sins shall die)

The Law "Thou shall not kill" didn't kill me. It is Holy, Just and Good, it is for my wellbeing, and created for "My Sake no doubt". Why would anyone need to be "Delivered" from the Righteous, perfect holy and Just Law "Thou shall not Kill"? You are being tricked by listening to men, and not God. The LAW that Killed me was "The Soul that Sins shall die".

This is the Law by which I was held when I walked in the Flesh. This is the LAW I was delivered from.

Eph. 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

And what about "not serving according to the letter". Again, you are forced to violently redefine words - to "serve according to a law" means to live in accordance with its prescriptions. You are implicitly redefining "not serving according to the letter" to mean "not being condemned by the law, but still needing to follow it".

Serving "According to the Letter" would be to die and stay dead. The Christ of the Bible tells you the following if only you would believe Him.

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

This is why Paul teaches that "Yielding Oneself" to obey Sin, brings death, just as it did when a man partook with the "children of disobedience". The bondage of death, BY the LAW, "The soul that sins shall die" holds the Children of Disobedience. It is the Yoke of Bondage Paul speaks to. When a man believes on the Christ of the Bible, he is released from the LAW that bound him, and is free to become a New Man, as Paul says, "And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Just like the Christ of the Bible taught both before HE became a man in Ez. 18.

Why should we die.

Luke 13: 3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Your unbelief in these Words of the Holy Scriptures, doesn't make them void.

As much as such redefinitions serve your purpose, they are entirely illicit moves.

Obedience to God serves HIS purpose. As Paul teaches "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

And, understandably, you are silent, at least to this point, I believe on the marriage metaphor that Paul uses to set up his statement about "release from Law". In that metaphor Paul writes about a woman who was married to someone who, yes, dies, and then she is free to marry another.

In my understanding, Christ Lives forever. So if HE is my symbolic husband, I am still bound by His Law as long as I don't commit adultery and am given a writ of divorcement.

I suggest a neutral person would not put 2 and 2 together and conclude, once we reach verse 6, that the Law has died and we are now free to embrace the Spirit.

God's Law is Spiritual. There is not one place in the Bible that teaches God's Law "died". This is another man-made insert you have infected the Scriptures with. While it is true that "many" profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate., we are warned to take heed of them. We are bound by the LAW of our husband as long as HE lives. The Christ of the Bible lives forever. You are truly free to leave Him and marry another whose Laws are more to your liking. But for me, the Christ of the Bible is more than enough.

Or put it this way: on your take that we are still to follow the Law, how does that line up with Paul's metaphor about a woman who is released from marital obligations? It appears to me that you are saying she is effectively still married and is not, in fact, free to marry another.

You are free to symbolically marry whomever you choose. It is evident whom men marry in this context, by the Law of their husband.

At the end of the day, no person without a motive would read "released from law X" and take it to mean "still obligated to follow X".

Rom. 1: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I can't find any other reason why a man would preach to the world that Jesus paid the penalty for Stealing as set forth by the Law, so you can be free to "Go and Steal some more". Paul certainly doesn't teach this, either does Jesus, nor Moses, or the Prophets.

 

[expos4ever]

No, you are not using this "reasoning". You still refuse to acknowledge who "Inspired" the Holy Scriptures.

This is profoundly misleading and inflammatory - I have never, even remotely, written anything that would lead anyone who is actually reading my posts to conclude such a thing.

To justify your adopted religious sect,

What religious sect might that be? I actually have no denomination affiliation of any kind.

you are implying that "Moses" Inspired the Law and Prophets.

I have never done anything of the kind.

When Paul, Jesus and all the Faithful examples in the bible understood it was GOD, the God of Abraham that Inspired the Law and Prophets.

Strawman (again)- I never posted anything that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I beleieve that God did not inspire the Law and the Prophets.

Because your heart is darkened, you have no clue as to why God instructed the utter destruction of Pagan Nations, and what it means for the Body of Christ, in God's New Priesthood Covenant.

On precisely what basis do you conclude that my heart is darkened? It certainly seems that your grounds for such a claim is that I happen to challenge your views.

Again, Moses never made even ONE LAW. Your argument is baseless and foolish, and the Bible easily proves as much all over the place.

Strawman - I never wrote a single thing that would lead a reasonable person to believe that I believe Moses wrote any law of his own accord.

You have yet to ever meet someone who was born "before the LAW was given".

Strawman yet again.

 

[expos4ever]

But wait a minute here. There is no mention of the "Law of Moses" here. Isn't that kind of hypocritical for you to engage in the same practice you accuse me of?

Apples and oranges. No one will deny that "the Law" here means the Law of Moses:

Romans 5:13

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law

On the other hand, when scripture refers to "commandments of God", we all know that this category does not necessarily contain the Law of Moses: the command to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a command from God and it is certainly not in the Law of Moses. And neither is Jesus's command to not lust after a woman in your heart.

These examples alone prove that the category "the commandments of God" could, repeat could, entirely exclude the Law of Moses.

Let me ask you are question and let's see of you will answer. Was satan in the world in the very beginning?

How far back do you want to go? I suppose Satan is a created being so he could not have been there at the very beginning. Was he in the garden of Eden? Yes.

Why was Adam and Eve ushered out of the garden and "Charged"? Why did God flood the world? Why was Sodom destroyed? Of course, you will not answer.

They sinned - they broke a command of God. But, and there is no debate here: the command was not part of the Law of Moses. Question answered.

In your religion, did God's Laws exist before Moses was born?

In my religion? What religion is that? The one that does not suit your personal tastes, I imagine.

The Law of Moses may well have existed in God's mind before Sinai, but it was not given to the people till Sinai. Are you going to claim that people intuitively knew about this law, from the Law of Moses, before Moses?

You are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel

Gen. 26: 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Yes, God's Laws, Statutes, Judgments and commandments existed before God gave them to Abraham's Children through Moses.

Strawman - did I ever claim that God did not issue commands before Moses? Of course not. The problem, of course, is that you will not accept the plain fact that some of God's commands do not fall under the umbrella of the Law of Moses.

But it is God's LAW, Yes? And if you were placed in the Garden of Eden today, would this LAW of God not be in force?

Sure it would be. But, again, not part of the Law of Moses.

Matt. 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Are up for some slaughtering of Amorites?
Are you going to build an ark?
Are you going to build a temple per the specifications that God gave to Solomon?

It is painfully obvious that God give some commands to certain people or groups and that those commands are not eternal.

Is the Law of Moses for all humanity? Of course not, it is for the Jews only. Otherwise, it would make no sense for Paul to write this:

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also

No person with a lick of sense would write these words unless they believed the Law was for Jews only.

Prov. 6: 20 My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: 21 Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. 22 When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee. 23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: 24 To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. 25 "Lust not after her beauty in thine heart;" neither let her take thee with her eyelids. 26 For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.

Proverbs is not part of the Law of Moses. Nice try, though.

Lev. 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Ok, fair enough. But what about this:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

I know of nothing like this in the Law of Moses, but perhaps you can find something.