• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

My confusion over the Old Law

Discussion in 'For New Christians' started by IMNW, Jun 11, 2017.

  1. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +2,579
    Messianic
    Single
    Obeying the Law doesn't save because it was never given for that purpose in the first place. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith was one of the weightier matters of the Law, so the God's LAw is of faith, and obedience to it is straightforwardly about having faith to guide us in how to rightly live. Every example of saving faith in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone living in obedience to God's will, so faith is always associated with and willingness to do that. Sorry, I don't see how your response is related to my question.

    So you're saying Christ came to free us from doing what is good, perfect, and just?

    To fulfill the Law is defined as causing God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be. After Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law in Matthew 5:17, he then proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it. In Galatians 5:14, loving your neighbor fulfills the entire law, so anyone who has ever loved their neighbor as fulfilled the entire Law, which means that it does not refer to something unique that Jesus did. Likewise, in Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ because it is obeying it that it should be. In Romans 15:18-19, it says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, which referred to causing the Gentiles to become fully obedient to it in word and in deed. There are also many other uses of the term "fulfill the law" found in other Jewish writings that use it in the same way.

    In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus was not asked about which Law should be followed to the exclusion of others, but about what the greatest command was. He summarized the Law as being God's instructions for how to love God and our neighbor and said that all of the other laws hang on those two commands. So the greatest two commands are the greatest because they encapsulate all of the other commands and all of the other commands are commentary or the explanation for how to correctly obey the greatest to commands. So all of the 613 commands in the NT and 1,050 commands in the NT can be put into the the categories of instructions for how to love God and for how to love our neighbor, so love fulfills the Law because that is essentially what it is about how to do.
     
  2. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,195
    Non-Denom
    Private
    The Law also brings condemnation. You talk about loving your neighbor and how that perfectly fulfills the Law, but that is not exactly right because the Law has always been ALL or NONE.

    Meaning, if There was ONE TIME someone did not love their neighbor and for example stole from them than that person has broken the Law and once it has been broken it can never be kept perfectly, which is what God commanded and called the Israeliite’s to.

    It is the ALL or NOTHING part of the Law Christ saves us from because NO ONE can keep the Law perfectly.

    I would have thought you would know this

    It is convenient to forget that one must keep the Law perfectly. That is why no one comes to the Father, but through Christ.

    What you are teaching is not the OT Law but some revised Law that doesn’t exist or that is convenient. God didn’t state the Law as you describe
     
  3. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +2,579
    Messianic
    Single
    The Law has never brought condemnation for those who are in Christ, but those who are in Christ ought to walk in the same way that he walked, which was in complete obedience to the Law (1 John 2:3-6). Making God's Law to be about needing perfect obedience in order to obtain our justification has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of it and of His character because it makes it out to be that what God primarily wants from us is a perfect performance when since the beginning with God walking with Adam in the Garden what God has always wanted is an intimate relationship with us, with His Law just being instructions for how to grow in that relationship. If it were about a perfect performance, then God would not have always disdained it when His people outwardly obeyed Him while their hearts were far from Him, but rather God has always been primarily concerned wither where are heart is.

    The Bible doesn't contain anything like the message that someone was doing a good job of obeying God's Law, but they slipped up once and now they won't be justified. There is no emphasis whatsoever on the need to obtain something through perfect obedience, though I would agree that our goal should be perfect obedience because we love God and because we have faith in Him to guide us in how to rightly live.

    If the Law were all or nothing, then it wouldn't contain instructions for what to do when people sinned and there wouldn't be any emphasis on the need to repent from our sins, contrary to the message of every single prophet up to and including Jesus. When we fail to obey the Law perfectly and become a lawbreaker, it doesn't mean that won't be justified, it just means that we need to repent, so continuing to practice repentance has always been the key distinction between someone keeping the Law or not. In Deuteronomy 30:15-20, God said that obedience to the Law brings life and a blessing, while disobedience brings death and curse, so choose life! However if we needed perfect obedience, then that is not really a choice, and God essentially gave to the Law to His children in order to put us under a curse, but I think our Father knows how to give better gifts to His children than that. If it were impossible for us to keep the Law, then we could not be held responsible for not keeping it. Furthermore, God said in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 that what He commanded was not too difficult for us, but that His Word is near us, in our heart and in our mouths so that we can do it, and Romans 10:5-10 quotes that passage in regard to what our faith says, so to say that it is no one can keep the Law is to call God a liar and to deny what our faith says.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2017
  4. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,195
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I know it is easy now for us, having the New Testament text to go back and because we know Jesus words to put 'faith' front in center as part of the Law, but that is simply not the case. The word 'faith' is never used in the Law.

    That is why it is called the 'weightier matter', because it is not distinctly listed but should be a product of following the Law and righteousness.

    So using New Testament words, IMHO doesn't cut it because they never existed under the Old Covenant/the Law.

    Your other text "Every example of saving faith in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone living in obedience to God's will" i have no idea how you can equate living in obedience to faith when obedience to the Law is part of the command that was given to Moses with the Law and does not include faith at all, since perfect obedience was the expectation, not faith (at that time). God wanted faith to come out of it, but we see in Matthew 23 and other text that Israel missed the mark with the fatih part. The entire Old Testament almost squels your argument.
     
  5. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,195
    Non-Denom
    Private
    It is so interesting how you use the New Testament and what we have learned from the NEW COVENANT, to then go back to defend the Old Covenant.

    For the Old Covenant to stand on it's own, you shouldn't be mixing the knowledge we have now after Christ with a totally different covenant that God Himself called inferior to the New Covenant.

    You cannot see how you are reading and dividing the Old Testament words and message, using the New Testament words and message? A New Covenant and New Testament that never existed or was the covenant during the time of the text that you are studying?

    How can that rightly divide God's Word of Truth? You wonder why your message is so fragmented?

    You will never truly understand the Old Covenant mixing it now with Christ and His blood and calling it an accurate representation of the Law.

    I must say that it does explain now with the mixing of covenants and knowledge between the Old Testament and New Testament where some of the doctrine that seems really different and not BIblical comes from.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2017
  6. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +2,579
    Messianic
    Single
    I find your criticism to be rather odd because I quote frequently from both the OT and NT to show that it supports what I am saying, to show that I have not departed from it, and to show that it is one continuously revealed whole plan of redemption, whereas it is you are saying that I need to fragment the Scriptures by just using the OT. I have not been mixing the New and the Mosaic Covenant, but I been saying that they share the same laws because the laws teach us how to walk in God's ways in accordance with His eternal attributes, which are not dependant on any particular covenant. If something said about the Mosaic Law in the NT is true, then it was also true during the OT, and what is said in the NT is based off of what is said in the OT. The NT authors quoted or alluded to the OT thousands of times for the same reason that I do. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true. According to Amos 3:7, God does nothing that he has not first revealed through the prophets, so any interpretation of what God has done in the NT that is not in accordance with what He has revealed through the prophets is not correct and not in accordance with how the Bereans understood Paul, such as the teaching that God's Law has been done away with.

    In John 5:46, Jesus said that Moses wrote about him, in Luke 24:27, Jesus began with Moses and the Prophets, interpreting to them all the things in Scripture concerning himself, in Hebrews 10:7, it says that the volume of the scroll is written about Jesus, so it is all about having faith in the promise. In Romans 9:30-Romans 10:4, the reason why Israel failed to obtain righteousness was not because they did what God commanded them to do and God gave them faulty instructions, but that they failed to understand that the righteousness of God was through Messiah for everyone who has faith, so they ignorantly pursued the Law as though righteousness were by works instead in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the Law as though righteousness were by faith in order to grow in a relationship with Christ. So they misunderstood the goal of the Law and when you say that the Law was ever about the need for perfect obedience, then you share in their misunderstanding of its goal, you just think that your faith does away with the need to obey it in spite of the fact that Paul said in Romans 3:31 that are faith does not do away with our need to obey the Law, but rather our faith upholds the Law.

    In Habakkuk 2:4, it says that the righteous shall live by faith and this does not refer to living in some other manner that is not in obedience to God's commands, but just the opposite. Submitting to God's commands has always been about placing our faith in Him to guide us in how to rightly live and living by faith has always been associated with submitting to God's commands. In Genesis 6:8-9, it says that Noah found grace in the eyes of God and that he was a righteous man, and we know that the one and only way that anyone has ever become righteous is by grace through faith. In Deuteronomy 6:20-25, obedience to God's commands in in regard to having faith in Him to bring them up out of Egypt, faith in Him to defeat Pharaoh, faith in Him to bring them to the land that He sword to their fathers, faith in Him that His commands are for their own good, and faith in Him to preserve them. So it was by grace through faith that they would be righteous and by the same grace through the same faith that they would be careful to obey all of God's commands. In Leviticus 5:15, Leviticus 6:2, Numbers 5:6, Deuteronomy 32:51, Joshua 7:1, Joshua 22:-31, 1 Chronicles 5:25 1 Chronicle 9:1, 1 Chronicles 10:13, it speaks about people who have committed a breach of faith with God by not obeying His commands, and in Deuteronomy 28:1, Joshua 24:24, 1 Samuel 12:24, 1 Kings 2:4, 1 Kings 3:6, 2 Kings 20:3 it speaks about faithfully obeying God's commands. I could cite more verses, but you should get the point. Faithfulness has always been an important attribute of God for us to reflect in both the OT and the NT (Exodus 34:6-7), so the idea that faith wasn't important until the NT is completely false.

    I have made the argument that faith has always been associated with obeying God's will in order to show that your concept of the Law being about outward obedience and not about faith is false. God has always intended faith to result from it, and many did understand this, so that fact that many others also did not understand this does not change that fact that it has always been about faith.
     
  7. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,195
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Well this is where you are wrong.

    First, it is divided into Covenants for a reason. The Old Covenant was in effect until Christ's death and shed blood on the cross and after Christ's death the New Covenant has been in effect.

    The Covenants ARE NOT the same, neither are they a "whole plan of redemption", as you put it.

    Not my words or idea, but GODS.

    In Jeremiah, God foretold of the New Covenant, calling it a better covenant.

    Jeremiah 31:31-37

    31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

    • 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

    35Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

    36If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

    37Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.


    So as you can see, there is a New Covenant because the Old Covenant did not work.

    Your second statement is that they shared the same laws. No they did not. God has even outlined above some of the changes that will be in the New Covenant

    • I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their heart
    • I will forgive their iniquity
    • they shall teach no more every man his neighbour
    • they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them
    Furthermore, there are other statements in the Bible that describe why changes had to take place.

    Hebrews 7:11-12
    11 Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (upon which basis the people received the Law), why was there still a need for another priest to appear—one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the Law must be changed as well. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar.

    Hebrews 8
    Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

    A New Covenant
    7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,

    “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
    When I will effect a new covenant
    With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
    9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
    On the day when I took them by the hand
    To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
    For they did not continue in My covenant,
    And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
    10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
    After those days, says the Lord:
    I will put My laws into their minds,
    And I will write them on their hearts.
    And I will be their God,
    And they shall be My people.
    11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
    And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
    For all will know Me,
    From the least to the greatest of them.
    12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
    And I will remember their sins no more.”

    When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
     
  8. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +2,579
    Messianic
    Single
    I will start by noting that you haven't interacted with what I've said about the issue of faith and all or nothing.

    I completely agree that the New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant, but God's attributes are eternal and unchanging, so the difference is not in regard to God's attributes changing or the way to act in accordance with God's attributes changing. For example, the Law reveals that it is acting in accordance with God's eternal righteousness to help the poor, and this will always be true no matter which covenant anyone is under, so there was no action that was not in accordance with God's righteousness that become so or vice versa when either the Mosaic Covenant or the New Covenant was made.

    The problem with the Old Covenant wasn't with God's righteous standard or with His instructions for how to live according to that standard, but rather the problem was with the people who broke their covenant and would not submit to His righteous standard because of the hardness of their hearts, so the solution to the problem wasn't to do away with God's righteous standard, but to do away with what was hindering us from meeting it. According to Ezekiel 36:26-27, the New Covenant involves God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead to obey His Law, and as you mentioned with Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, which again is done so that we will obey it this time, not so that we will reject it. There is nothing that you've cited that indicates that God is changing His eternal righteous standard and that he is giving a different set of laws in accordance with the new standard, but just the opposite, namely that the New Covenant involves God writing the same Law on our hearts.

    The context is speaking about a change in the priesthood, which would also require a change in the administration of the Law, not a change in God's righteousness.

    As you underlined in Hebrews 8:4, there were still priests who were making offerings in accordance with the Law, so the Law was not done away with. Furthermore, if the Law were not still in effect, then it would have no power to prevent Jesus from being the priest if he were on earth. The way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is eternal, so while a covenant agreement to live by God's righteous standard can come and go, God's righteous standard will always remain the same.
     
  9. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,195
    Non-Denom
    Private
    The problem is that you cannot see that with the Covenant change, God's expectations and how God redeems US has changed, not God.

    You have this constant argument that God has not changed. Of course God has not changed, how can perfection change to imperfection? And if God changed to imperfection he would no longer be Holy. So why ever you insist on trying to teach me God doesn't change you should realize that it is not about God changing.

    In Jeremiah, the OLD TESTAMENT, God foretold the New Covenant and He foretold what it would do and how it would be different from the Old Covenant.

    So God didn't do a change in HIMSELF, God changed the Covenant. God created a second Covenant, a NEW AND BETTER Covenant. Based on not temporary atonement for sin, under a man who was high priest, but PERMENANT Atonement under a High Priest who is none other that God Himself.

    So let's recap. God did not change, God initiated and put into place a New Covenant. God changed the Covenant, NOT GOD Changed, so please stop with that argument because I have read you going back to it as your fall back argument and it is irrelevant, because I am not saying God changed, I am saying God decided to make another Covenant and in doing so made the Old One pass away.



    Hebrews 7:11-12

    11 Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (upon which basis the people received the Law), why was there still a need for another priest to appear—one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the Law must be changed as well. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar.


    Hebrews 8

    Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

    A New Covenant
    7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,

    “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
    When I will effect a new covenant
    With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
    9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
    On the day when I took them by the hand
    To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
    For they did not continue in My covenant,
    And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
    10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
    After those days, says the Lord:
    I will put My laws into their minds,
    And I will write them on their hearts.
    And I will be their God,
    And they shall be My people.
    11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
    And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
    For all will know Me,
    From the least to the greatest of them.
    12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
    And I will remember their sins no more.”

    When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.



    So it is about the covenant and the Old is obsolete and growing old and is ready to disappear
     
  10. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,195
    Non-Denom
    Private
    "Making gifts" and one high priest in the Tabernacle atoning for sins are not the same.

    There are people who say they are sacrificing or atoning for sin today in Judaism, does that mean Christ is not the Messiah?
     
  11. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +3,304
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    The answer is "yes and no." The Ten Commandments are part of the Law, and the Law is for Jews, not Christians. But there are laws Gentiles are to follow, and some of them are repeated in the Ten Commandments. Gentiles have few laws to follow, Jews have many, so there is some overlap.

    The first and second commandments emphasize that God alone is to be worshiped and served. According to Jewish tradition, the Lordship of God is emphasized in Genesis 2:16 with "And the LORD God commanded the man," and the necessity of following him only is extracted from the command given to not eat of the tree as well.

    The third commandment against blasphemy is repeated in Leviticus 24:15-16, where it says that Jews and foreigners alike must not blaspheme.

    The fourth commandment, to honor the Sabbath, is not given to Gentiles outside of the borders of Israel.

    The fifth commandment to honor parents is not explicitly repeated to the nations in the Old Testament, but Paul teaches that all children in the church should follow it in Ephesians 6:1-3.

    The sixth commandment against murder was given first to all mankind in Genesis 9:6.

    The seventh commandment against adultery is among the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 (verse 20 specifically), and verses 24-30 teach that God judged the Canaanites for committing the sins outlined in that chapter. Also, God judged Pharoah for having the intent to take Abraham's wife (Genesis 12:10-20), and Abimelech as well (Genesis 20).

    The eighth commandment against stealing is implied by Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden - the fruit was not theirs to eat. It was also known in Abraham's day, see Genesis 21:25-26.

    The ninth commandment is given specifically to Israel, I am unaware of where it is taught to the nations before the New Testament, where any kind of lying is strongly taught against.

    The tenth commandment against coveting is not to my knowledge taught to the nations in the Old Testament, but it is certainly covered in the teachings against greed in the New Testament.
     
  12. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +2,579
    Messianic
    Single
    Since the Fall, God has only had one plan of redemption and that has only ever been through faith in the promised redeemer. This was the same plan before, during, and after the Mosaic Covenant was made.

    If you agree that God's attributes have not changed, and the way to act in accordance with God's attributes has not changed, then any revelation of how to act in accordance God's attributes will always remain valid, and in the NT we are required to act in accordance with God's attributes, so we can look to the Mosaic Law for instructions for how to do that.

    It is a New Covenant where God would put His Law for how to walk in His ways in accordance with His attributes in our minds and write it on our hearts so that we will obey it.

    Indeed, it is a new and better covenant, but not a covenant where God's ways have changed.

    I will stop making the argument as soon as you stop act like God's ways have changed.

    You've agree that God doesn't change, so to be consistent, you also there agree that this is not speaking about God's ways changing, and therefore the way to act in accordance with them as revealed in the Mosaic Law is still the same?

    You have agreed that God doesn't change, so therefore to be consistent, you agree that the the Old Covenant coming to an end doesn't mean that God's ways have come to an end? In Hebrews 8:4, it speaks about the priests continuing the make offerings in accordance with the Law, so it is still in effect. Furthermore, if it weren't in effect, then it would have no power to prevent Christ from being a priest if he were on earth.
     
  13. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +2,579
    Messianic
    Single
    Following Christ is not just for Jews, but rather we are all told to follow his example.
     
  14. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +3,304
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    Of course, we are all to follow Christ.
     
  15. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +2,579
    Messianic
    Single
    Set a perfect example for his followers to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he taught obedience to it by word and by example, and we are told to follow hi example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 3:6), and to be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 11:1). It is inconsistent for you to say that we are all to follow Christ while saying that following his example in accordance with the Law is for Jews, not for Christians.
     
  16. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +3,304
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    I didn't say that only Jews are supposed to follow Christ. However, I'm in agreement with the Holy Spirit in Acts 15 when I say that Gentiles do not have to follow all of the Jewish rules.
     
  17. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +2,579
    Messianic
    Single
    Jesus set an example of how to obey the Law and as his followers we are told to follow his example, but if the Law is only for Jews and not for Gentiles, then following Jesus is only for Jews and not for Gentiles. The Jerusalem Council did not speak against Gentiles following Christ, nor should you follow them instead of Christ if you think that they did.
     
  18. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +3,304
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    I didn't speak against following Christ. The Jerusalem Council didn't either. They did speak very clearly against forcing Gentiles to follow the entire Law. Paul himself spoke against it in his letter to the Galatians.
     
  19. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +2,579
    Messianic
    Single
    You're being contradictory. Where do you find the fault in this logic?: To follow Christ means to follow his example, Christ set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Law, therefore to follow Christ means to walk in obedience to the Law and to teach against following Christ's example is to teach against following him.

    Also, where do you find the fault with this logic: The Jerusalem Council ruled against requiring all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, God's Law does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, therefore this ruling was not against Gentiles following the Law. If you disagree with the 2nd premise, then please quote where God required all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved and explain why we should obey follow the Jerusalem Council instead of what God required. Likewise, if you think that Paul spoke against obeying what God commanded, then explain why we should follow him instead of God.
     
  20. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +3,304
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    OK, you're bringing up circumcision. Good. Jesus was circumcised. If "following Jesus" doesn't mean becoming circumcised, then it won't mean keeping kosher or avoiding clothing made of mixed materials either.
     
Loading...