Legalism Is Baffling

[trophy33]

I see nothing objectionable in that statement, but Christ's work is not to set us free from the law but to set us free from sin. Obedience to the law is not legalism, legalism is attempting to "get right" with God through obeying the law. We are already right with God through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, set free from sin so that we may fulfill the righteousness of the law. Sin's power over the law was disarmed at the cross, and through the gospel we may sing Psalm 119 in its entirety without shame because the law is no longer our accuser.

1. We, who are here on these forums, have never been given the Mosaic law, it was given to ancient Israel only. Paul frequently use "we" when he is talking about his Jewish background.

2. Jews are set free from the law:

"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Gal 3:23-25

 

[Fervent]

1. We, who are here on these forums, have never been given the Mosaic law, it was given to ancient Israel only. Paul frequently use "we" when he is talking about his Jewish background.

2. Jews are set free from the law:

"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Gal 3:23-25

We have to understand Paul's corpus to grasp his teaching on the law, especially since many of his letters are highly polemic. Those outside of Israel were certainly not given the Mosaic covenant, but Romans 1-3 makes it clear the law was still a ministry of condemnation even for the gentiles and that it goes beyond the specific statutes and ordinances found within the Mosaic covenant. Romans 5-8 then makes clear that the problem with the law was not the law itself, but that the law gave sin a foothold to stand as our accuser. The law is righteous and holy and good, so why should we not desire to obey it if we truly desire God and seek the things that are righteous and holy and good? Paul speaks of the law as a ministry of death, but James makes it clear that it is also the law of liberty. The issue is sin, not the law.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

To partially borrow from John, the "or else" would be the person who claims to believe the gospel but isn't obedient to the law is a liar and the truth is not in him.

I agree with this, but my view is likely more strict than yours. Do you subscribe to the "habitual" theory of righteousness under which a little sin is tolerated if it is accompanied by the right elements (e.g., repentance, confession, etc.) and if it is not habitually practiced? Or do you believe complete sinlessness in the new man is required? Let's use these verses from 1 John 3 as the basis for the discussion:

4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. (1 Jn 3:4–9)​

 

[eleos1954]

Paul fills Galatians with statements of amazement concerning the Galatian Christians who had turned away from grace and had adopted a legalistic approach to Christian living.

Chapter 1: "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ." (Ga 1:6–7)

Chapter 2: "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." (Ga 2:21)

Chapter 3: "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?" (Ga 3:1)

Chapter 4: "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?" (Ga 4:21)

Chapter 5: "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (Ga 5:4)

And in chapter 6, he makes this telling statement: "For not even those who are circumcised keep the law". (Ga 6:13)

It is truly baffling when Christians set aside the grace of God and place themselves under the law.

The grace of God does not exempt one from the law. By the grace of God, through the work of the Holy Spirit He will help us keep the law, out of love ... His grace.

Of course there is law .... else how can God judge rightly?

If we keep the law out of love and not for any other reasons it's not legalism ... What is sin? Transgression of the law ... not transgression of God's grace.

The law leads us to Christ, we are made aware of our sinful condition by the law, and then comes repentance (turning away from sin which is transgression of the law)

There is nothing wrong with the law .... there is something wrong with us. Without the law we would not know what sin is.

Grace does not do away with or replace the law . When the Lord helps us overcome sin (transgression of the law) we are thankful and praise Him.

It is by HIs Grace He helps us overcome sin (transgression of the law)

 

[trophy33]

The issue is sin, not the law.

The issue is both:
a) sinning against the gospel
b) legalism regarding the old law

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

I see nothing objectionable in that statement,

That's good to hear.

but Christ's work is not to set us free from the law but to set us free from sin.

It's both... "But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. (Ro 7:6)

Obedience to the law is not legalism, legalism is attempting to "get right" with God through obeying the law.

Peter was right with God when he reverted to legalism. So were the Galatians. So it's not just about getting right with God, it is also about maintaining rightness with God.

We are already right with God through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, set free from sin

that is correct

so that we may fulfill the righteousness of the law.

Yes, as in Romans 8:4 -- "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Sin's power over the law was disarmed at the cross, and through the gospel we may sing Psalm 119 in its entirety without shame because the law is no longer our accuser.

I agree 100% with the law no longer being our accuser.

 

[Soyeong]

Its a song from the Old Covenant era. It should not be put against the teachings of Gospel in the New Covenant.

About 1/3 of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT and the authors of the NT did this thousands of times in order to show that it supported what they were saying and to show that they hadn't departed with it, so they certainly saw the OT as still being authoritative. The Psalms in particular are by far the most quoted OT book in the NT. It should not make sense to you to think the teaching of the NT were contrary to what its authors quoted as Scripture. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul taught against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so according to that precendee, agreement with the OT is the standard by which we should accept the truth of what is said in the NT.

One sentence from another letter is not the broader context. The context is the situation in the church in Galatia and the letter to Galatia.

Indeed, the immediate context is the letter to Galatia, though what other things Paul said on the same topic are within the broader context.

You probably do not understand the word gospel. Gospel is the message that the kingdom of God has come (in Jesus Christ).

Old testament people heard about it in the form of prophecies, but did not live in it. They were given the law till the coming of Christ and their song is about the law.

Jesus did not come with the message to stop repenting because the law has ended now that he has come, but just the opposite. 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 God's law 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 message. This Gospel message in accordance with Jesus being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26), which is the same Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), and which he taught to those in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5).

1. We, who are here on these forums, have never been given the Mosaic law, it was given to ancient Israel only. Paul frequently use "we" when he is talking about his Jewish background.

Likewise, the New Covenant was only made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel (Jeremiah 31:31).

2. Jews are set free from the law:

"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Gal 3:23-25

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 Jesus is the goal of the law, and that is contrary to saying that the law ended with the coming of Jesus. The law leads us to Christ because it teaches us how to know him, not so that we can reject his Gospel and go back to living in sin. Someone who disregarded everything that their tutor taught them after they left would be missing the whole point of a tutor.

Moreover, in Galatians 3:16-19, a newer covenant does not nullify the promise of an older covenant that has already been ratified, and freeing us from the law would nullify the promise in connection with the law. In addition, Galatians 3:26-29 every aspect of being children of God, through faith, in Christ, children of Abraham, and heirs of the promise is directly connected with living in obedience to God's law. In 1 John 3:10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not children of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him. In Genesis 18:19, Genesis 26:4-5, and Deuteronomy 30:16, 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 and those of his household to do that, and because they did that.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

The grace of God does not exempt one from the law.

Hmmm... "you are not under the law, but under grace". (Ro 6:14)

By the grace of God, through the work of the Holy Spirit He will help us keep the law, out of love ... His grace.

Yea, that's a tough point of view to maintain. Certainly, if we walk in the Spirit we will not gratify the lusts of the flesh. But do you know any Christians who walk in the Spirit all the time and have no need for God's grace to cover their sins?

Of course there is law .... else how can God judge rightly?

Yes, the law confines everyone under sin in order that "the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." (Ga 3:22)

If we keep the law out of love and not for any other reasons it's not legalism ... What is sin? Transgression of the law ... not transgression of God's grace.

No one keeps the law. Everyone needs the forgiveness of sins that His grace provides (Eph 1:7)

The law leads us to Christ, we are made aware of our sinful condition by the law, and then comes repentance (turning away from sin which is transgression of the law). There is nothing wrong with the law .... there is something wrong with us. Without the law we would not know what sin is.

Yes, "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Ga 3:24–25) We are no longer under the tutor.

Grace does not do away with or replace the law . When the Lord helps us overcome sin (transgression of the law) we are thankful and praise Him. It is by HIs Grace He helps us overcome sin (transgression of the law)

Well, for us, it has been replaced by a better paradigm, as Paul so elequently stated in his letter to the Romans:

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. (Ro 7:4–6)​

 

[Soyeong]

And how do we evade the law's requirements for complete obedience?

The law came with instructions for what to do when God's people sinned.

Notice what God said about obeying His commandments:

"Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you today; and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God". (Dt 11:26–28)​

There is a blessing for obedience and a curse for disobedience. Imposing God's commandments on yourself or on others only works for those who are obedient. It doesn't work for those who are disobedient. The second part is what is baffling about legalism. Why would anyone want that?

God is sovereign, so we are all under His law and obligated to obey it regardless of whether or not we recognize that. If people were not already obligated to obey God's law, then there would no point in spreading the Gospel message to them calling for them to repent. Unbelievers could just say that they have no need to repent because they aren't a member of the New Covenant and don't need to obey its law. Teaching people to repent in accordance with the Gospel is teaching people to how to be blessed rather than cursed. Why wouldn't anyone want that?

 

[bling]

Yea, that's a tough point of view to maintain. Certainly, if we walk in the Spirit we will not gratify the lusts of the flesh. But do you know any Christians who walk in the Spirit all the time and have no need for God's grace to cover their sins?

You asked the question: “But do you know any Christians who walk in the Spirit all the time…?”

Let me ask you: Have you ever been around a group of mostly new Christians, who if they show the slightest weakness, not doing what Christ would do and even think what Christ would not think, in every situation risked being seen by some very sneaky fellows who will tell some really bad guys you are not fully committed and those really bad guys will come and beat you maybe to death, to try and make you their slaves.

I can give you my personal story of God seeing to my humiliation, for I thought I was a Spiritual giant in the Kingdom, had done about every good thing you could and knew it all.

For many years, I experienced and believed Christianity had no real down side. It was a happy, easy and rewarding life, everyone should jump in.

I use to teach “we (Christians) all sin lots of times and cannot keep from it, but we are constantly being washed by the blood of Christ, so we are without sin in that case.” That was before I met a group of Christians that risked death for themselves and others by sinning, just any sign of not doing what Christ would be doing in that moment. Here is what happened:

I got thrown into (volunteered to substitute teach) with the youth (13-21 age) prisoners program teaching Bible (one hour on Sunday morning to a group of 14 with three other Christians teaching groups of 14) and I was teaching three groups of “Christians”. The first group were guys (“going to school”, it is called), they start out causing trouble and getting thrown in the tank. Then they start increasingly attending the Bible services, carrying their Bible, being nice, eventually being baptized and saying they are Christian. By the time the parole board meets, they have this glowing report showing continued improvement tied to their increased spirituality and are released. These guys still carry weapons, are members of a gang, and every prisoner knows they just “went to school” to get out. The second group were converted before they went to prison (granny conversions), but on the first day they are seen watching raunchy TV, hanging with a loss group, laughing at off colored jokes, were not always talking about Jesus and were not trying to convert others. Their first day in prison the snitches see this, the snitches talk to the Bulls who then approach these “Christians” saying: “you are not a Christian” (doing everything Christ would do) and make them a slave (often sexual) or at best a gang member. They still come to Bible study on Sunday, so they can tell Granny (who visits them Sunday afternoon) what they learned, but they are slaves (sometimes sexually) to some bull. The third group is fanatical, they stick close to each other, they: study, pray, witness to everyone, and avoid even a hint of insincerity that the snitches could see. They carry no weapons, but step between those that are being beaten especially persecuted. This group had grown over the last 3 years from just a couple of guys to now 42, but it came at a high price. Each convert had on the day he was baptized, gives up the protection of his gang membership, turned over his weapons along with all his possessions (the gang owns everything including them), they were beaten if not by the gang they left, then by other gangs looking for payback and then they were watched constantly looking for any sign the snitches might interpret as weakness (anything less than what Christ would do in the situation, would result in a beating and it could lead to death). There is absolutely no privacy and these Christians never wanted to be found alone. They slept in barracks where at least one stayed awake all night praying over the others, so they could sleep without the fear of being smashed in the head in the middle of the night. These guys believed and counted on power from the Holy Spirit, I did not know existed. They come battered and bruised each week hungry for some real meaningful Christ like lesson that goes beyond their group study of 40+hours that week on the same subject, which I could not provide. They mostly helped me with my poor example of Christianity and lack of knowledge and lack of wisdom. They mentored me even though they were only Christian for a few months, but I was a poor disciple and could not keep up with them.

I had many hard nights praying over those young men. I Loved them and empathetically to some degree suffered with them.

They really did not talk about “not sinning”, but what better thing they could be doing each and every minute of the day and night. If they did sin, even with their thoughts, they confessed immediately to everyone (all around so the snitches could hear it also), asking for help, prays and ideas on doing better, yet this was not a daily action for everyone.

It is not so much not wanting to sin but wanting to be a Christ like Christian (witness). This was not done to please the guards because the guards did not like them witnessing to them and the fact others might beat on them caused them added work to break up the beatings.

Maybe we do not see the Spirit working in us because we quench Him or are not in situations of really needing Him. Severe persecution brings out the Spirit in those who have the Spirit.

I really feel some did go days without sinning or should I say: “Some went days doing stuff the Holy Spirit could participate with them for 24 hours.”

One example of what I learned from them was: “You do not even try to keep from sinning (be on the defensive), but try to be involved in the next minute, in doing something really good (constantly on the offensive) then the Holy Spirit can be involved with you, and you keep doing good stuff all day and night and pick it up the next day”. You just do not have time to be involved in any sinning.

The "Law" is now written on our hearts: "Love God and secondly others with all your heart soul, mind, and energy."

 

[Fireinfolding]

The subject is circumcision- same author same subject. The bible is one continuous book all for our learning and correction 2 Tim 3:16

Speaks of the same being nothing

1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Paul brings in the commandments here

Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And Gal 5:6 begins similar to how 1 Corinthians 7:19 starts out

For example,

1 Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision;
but faith which worketh by love.

The same here as the other two verses, emphasizing a new creature

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision,
but a new creature.

So keeping the commandments of God, faith which works by love, as love is the fulfilling of the law, and the new creature is what is common between them.

Whereas here both the commandments of God and Faith of Jesus are mentioned together in one verse here

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

How do you get Corinthians to link on this forum?

 

[Soyeong]

Speaks of the same being nothing

1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Paul brings in the commandments here

Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And Gal 5:6 begins similar to how 1 Corinthians 7:19 starts out

For example,

1 Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision;
but faith which worketh by love.

The same here as the other two verses, emphasizing a new creature

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision,
but a new creature.

So keeping the commandments of God, faith which works by love, as love is the fulfilling of the law, and the new creature is what is common between them.

Whereas here both the commandments of God and Faith of Jesus are mentioned together in one verse here

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

How do you get Corinthians to link on this forum?

While Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is keeping the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we keep God's law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent and that its value is entirely derived from whether we keep God's law.

 

[Fireinfolding]

While Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is keeping the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we keep God's law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent and that its value is entirely derived from whether we keep God's law.

Soyeong Paul also said,

Gal 6:3 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

These likely trying to compell Titus to be circumcised which is why he stated earlier

Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised

Then ofcourse he says here

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

And Paul, who was a Jew and circumcised himself, said earlier

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

But again, he had said in Galations this

Gal 6:3 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

But he continues on in Romans (in following verse)

Romans 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Romans 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

And then continues further telling us what a Jew is and what is not and the same with true circumcision

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Phil 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

He seems to define things in these.

 

[Soyeong]

Soyeong Paul also said,

Gal 6:3 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

These likely trying to compell Titus to be circumcised which is why he stated earlier

Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised

Then ofcourse he says here

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

And Paul, who was a Jew and circumcised himself, said earlier

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

But again, he had said in Galations this

Gal 6:3 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

But he continues on in Romans (in following verse)

Romans 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Romans 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

And then continues further telling us what a Jew is and what is not and the same with true circumcision

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Phil 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

He seems to define things in these.

Either Paul only spoke against incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. The NT authors did not have the authority to countermand God, so they should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded for the reasons that He commanded them.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Either Paul only spoke against incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. The NT authors did not have the authority to countermand God, so they should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded for the reasons that He commanded them.

You know very well babies cannot make a choice regarding their circumcision in the U.S, that is performed on them but not for religious reasons, but supposedly more hygenic.

Then here...1 Co 7:18

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

And I suppose thats a whole other question how a circumcised male (according to the flesh) can actually opt to become uncircumcised, but I wont ask any further questions on that

But in the picture of Timothy (who went OUT to gain the Jews) versus the other which speaks positively on behalf of the confidence of Titus (when Paul speaks of the false brethren which come IN)

Paul compelling Timothy to it to gain the Jews. Whereas when Titus was around them he felt no inner compulsion to be circumcised. To me, its like theres two interesting pics there. Just as elsewhere it speaks to Paul's becoming all things to all men, and the other a testimony to Titus's own confidence in Christ (which is the inner witness of the true circumcision). So to me there seems to be a difference between what COMES IN (as with Titus) and what GOES OUT (as with Timothy)

Whatever "came into" the faith Paul fought, not giving into them (which were of the circumcision) that the truth of the gospel "remained with them", thusly not giving them subjection for a moment. However, with Timothy (who Paul desired to "go out to" unto the Jews in order to gain the Jews) he circumcised. This as to give none offense to the Jews, even as he also states "to the Jews I became a Jew to gain the Jews". And Paul himself didn't really need to (after the flesh) given he was a Jew (and circumcised "by hands" already) which he counted as dung. However, as a son with the father (who immitated what he saw in Paul) Tim did as Paul would do (in becoming all things to all men that he might save some) and this he did all for the sake of the gospel.

I won't argue with the scripture, I might just catch something differently while trying to confirm them rather than trying to pit them against the other. I try very hard not to do that.

 

[Soyeong]

You know very well babies cannot make a choice regarding their circumcision in the U.S, that is performed on them but not for religious reasons, but supposedly more hygenic.

1 Co 7:18

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

And I suppose thats a whole other question how a circumcised male (according to the flesh) can actually opt to become uncircumcised, but I wont ask any further questions on that

But in the picture of Timothy (who went OUT to gain the Jews) versus the other which speaks positively on behalf of the confidence of Titus (when Paul speaks of false brethren which come IN)

Paul compelled Tim to it to gain the Jews. Whereas when Titus was around them he felt no inner compulsion to be circumcised. Tp me, its like theres two interesting pics there. Just as elsewher it speaks to Paul's becoming all things to all men, and the other a testimony to Titus's own confidence in Christ (which is the inner witness of the true circumcision). So to me there seems to be a difference between what COMES IN (as with Titus) and what GOES OUT (as with Timothy)

Whatever "came into" the faith Paul fought, not giving into them (which were of the circumcision) that the truth of the gospel "remained with them", thusly not giving them subjection for a moment. However, with Timothy (who Paul desired to "go out to" unto the Jews in order to gain the Jews) he circumcised. This as to give none offense to the Jews, even as he also states "to the Jews I became a Jew to gain the Jews". And Paul himself didn't really need to (after the flesh) given he was a Jew (and circumcised "by hands" already) which he counted as dung. However, as a son with the father (who immitated what he saw in Paul) Tim did as Paul would do (in becoming all things to all men that he might save some) and this he did all for the sake of the gospel

The point is whether Paul was speaking against becoming circumcised for any reason or whether he was speaking against specific reasons and I think it is clear that he was only speaking against specific reasons that were not the ones that God commanded it for, especially because he did not have the authority to countermand God.

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 Jesus is the goal of the law, which means that Philippians 3:8-9 should not be interpreted as saying that God's law is dung and we just need know him instead. Rather, Paul had been obeying God's law, but not while being focused on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and that is what he counted as dung.

I won't argue with the scripture, I might just catch something differently while trying to confirm them rather than trying to pit them against the other. I try very hard not to do that.

God commanded circumcision in Scripture, so if anyone interprets Paul was speaking against circumcision in accordance with what God has commanded, then they are pitting Scripture against Scripture.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The point is whether Paul was speaking against becoming circumcised for any reason or whether he was speaking against specific reasons and I think it is clear that he was only speaking against specific reasons that were not the ones that God commanded it for, especially because he did not have the authority to countermand God.

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 Jesus is the goal of the law, which means that Philippians 3:8-9 should not be interpreted as saying that God's law is dung and we just need know him instead. Rather, Paul had been obeying God's law, but not while being focused on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and that is what he counted as dung.


God commanded circumcision in Scripture, so if you interpret Paul was speaking against circumcision in accordance with what God has commanded, then you are pitting Scripture against Scripture.

You have to show which scriptures I spoke against, good luck there.

 

[Soyeong]

You have to show which scriptures I spoke against, good luck there.

I didn't say that you spoke against Scripture, but spoke in regard to how I think that they should be interpreted and I did used the word "if" in my last sentence, though I just edited it so that it is more generally applicable.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I didn't say that you spoke against Scripture, but spoke in regard to how I think that they should be interpreted and I did used the word "if" in my last sentence, though I just edited it so that it is more generally applicable.

Thanks for clarifing Soyeong, I just do not see Paul preaching circumcision at all in any of his writing when following through them.

 

[Soyeong]

Thanks for clarifing Soyeong, I just do not see Paul preaching circumcision at all in any of his writing when following through them.

I don't see him directly in favor of it other than with Timothy, though I think he only spoke against it for incorrect purposes.