Predestination and Acts 10:34.

[DeaconDean]

In addition, the specific arguments Lindemann presents from 1 Corinthians do not prove his thesis. That Paul does not cite an OT law against incest in 1 Corinthians 5 is hardly surprising since he assumes that the Corinthians will agree with him on this point, and even Gentiles hold the same opinion (5.1). Paul’s failure to abide by the Jewish model in litigation and the Jewish expectation regarding marriage is irrelevant unless one wants to argue that Paul equated Jewish tradition with the OT law. Gen. 2.18 does not demandmarriage of all, and Paul is aware that not all are destined or gifted for singleness (1 Cor. 7.6-7). Moreover, Paul does not contradict Deut. 24.1ff in his words on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7, for the former passage does not demand divorce; instead, it permits it and regulates it when it occurs.[14] The failure to adhere to the food laws in 1 Corinthians 8-10 is not surprising, for these are clearly part of the ritual law.

That Paul does not cite the OT when he forbids “porneia” (“sexual immorality”) in 1 Cor. 6.12-20 is instructive, but it would only support Lindemann’s thesis if Paul never cites Torah as authoritative. Even in 1 Corinthians this is not the case. For example, Paul forbids idolatry in 1Cor. 10.1-13 with a clear reference to the OT.

Lindemann thinks that Paul’s rejection of idolatry is presupposed and his real ground for his rejection of idolatry comes in 10.21, namely from participation with Christ.[15] But why does Paul presuppose idolatry is wrong? He thinks idolatry is wrong because it is forbidden in no uncertain terms in the OT law. And it is illegitimate to say that since Paul argues from a relationship with Christ in 10.21 that any argument from the OT is therefore irrelevant. Paul uses both arguments to support his case. In addition, Paul explicitly cites the OT law to buttress his admonition in 1 Cor. 14.34, showing he did use the OT law in ethical decisions. It should also be said that Lindemann’s analysis rightly shows that the moral norms of the O.T. law were not the most crucial element of Paul’s ethical view. What was more important was the affections, i.e. the motives of the heart which manifested themselves in concrete actions (Gal. 5.14; Rom. 13.8-10). Paul’s focus upon the inward motive explains why he highlights and gives pre-eminence to love.

[1] Contra Furnish, Theology, 199-200; A. Lindemann, “Die biblischen Toragebote und die paulinische Ethik,” in Studien zum Text and our Ethik des Neuen Testaments (ed. W. Schrage; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986), 242-43, and 263, n. 108. H. Ridderbos (Paul, p. 282) goes to the other extreme when he says, “The law does not find its criterion in love, but just the reverse, the requirement of love is so imperative because in it lies the summary of the law.”

[2] Cranfield perceptively says (“St. Paul and the Law,” 67) that we “need the particular commandments into which the law breaks down the general obligation of love, to save us from the sentimentality and self-deception to which we all are prone.” (Cf. Schrage, Einzelgebote, 267-71). Deidun (New Covenant, 171) rightly says that love cannot be limited `to the fulfillment of calculated ethical demands.” He goes on to say, `But if love goes beyond calculable obligation, it does not go around.”

[3] The criterion of love is not a comprehensive explanation of Pauline ethics. Paul’s prohibitions on the basis of “nature”“jusiV” demonstrate this (Rom. 1.26-27; 1 Cor. 11.14). Natural law is not an infallible criterion for Paul, but it is a criterion he uses upon occasion. It is hardly evident how his prohibitions in Rom. 1.26-27 and 1 Cor. 11.14 are a violation of the law of love.

[4] Romans, 215-19; cf. also L. E. Keck, “The Law and ‘The Law of Sin and Death’ (Rom 8.1-4): Reflections on the Spirit and Ethics in Paul,” in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events Presented to Lou H. Silberman (ed. J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel; New York: Ktav, 1980), 51-53.

[5] Note also the passive of “plhrwqh” (“is fulfilled”) in 8.4. For a filler discussion of the passage see Deidun, New Covenant, 72-75; Thompson, “Interpretation of Rom 8.4,” 33-40; Cranfield, Romans, 383-85.

[6] The use ofdikaiwmain Rom. 5.16, 18 is unusual and is commonly attributed to rhetorical considerations. So Keck, “The Law,” 52; Cranfield, Romans, 287 n. 2; Käsemann, Romans, 154.

[7] T. R Schreiner, `Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E. P. Sanders,” WTJ 47 (1985): 268-78.

[8] K. R Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace–To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 (1986): 72-93.

[9] On the letter-spirit contrast in Paul see B. Schneider, “Letter and Spirit,” CBQ 15 (1953): 163-207; E. Käsemann, “Letter and Spirit,” New Testament Questions of Today (ET: London: SCM, 1969), 260-85; P. Richardson, “Spirit and Letter: A Foundation for Hermeneutics,” EvQ 45 (1973): SOS-18; Westerholm, “Letter and Spirit,” 229-48; Provence, “Who is Sufficient,” 62

[10] Bruce, “Paul and the Law,” 266; van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes, 130ff. Moo, “Works of Law,” 84-85; D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 696.

[11] E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979), 1:360-65; M. Hengel, The Son of God (E: Philadelphia: Fortress,1976), 67-68, n. 123; M. S. Enslin, The Ethics of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1957), 85; Longenecker, Apostle of Liberty, 144-45; Guthrie, Theology, 696; Käsemann, Romans, 215; R. J. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 109.

[12] Cf. Sanders who says (Paul, the Law, 101) that distinguishing between moral and ceremonial law in the case of idolatry would be extremely difficult.

[13] Lindemann, “Toragebote,” 242-65.

[14] So P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 304-305; W. A. Heth and G J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce: The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 106-10.

[15] Lindemann, “Die Toragebote,” 256.


The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul, Thomas R. Schreiner - Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989): 47-74.

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

The only “law” that existed prior to the giving of the Decalogue at Mt, Sinai, was the commandment by God to Abraham to circumcise the male sons. The giving of the Decalogue at Mt. Sinai, marks a moment in time. For it was here that God gave His revealed will for the Hebrews. The Apostle Paul was the biggest advocates of N.T, times that the Gentiles were not under the Law. Even the first Apostolic Council agreed to the extent that only a few of the items included in the “Law” even applied to Gentiles.

Lets get this straight, the “Law” does serve a purpose, even today. It is God’s revealed will. And Paul states that it was put into place to identify what was and wasn’t sin. And for a time, it was used as a way to establish man’s standing before God by his relationship to the Law. And even Paul made the boast that one could achieve blamelessness as concerned the Law. (cf. Phil. 3:6)

The demands of the Law were strict. There was no allowances for half-hearted tries. There was no “Red-ribbon” for giving it your best shot and failing. That is why Jesus was needed. All the demands of the Law, all that it demanded of man, we could not fulfill. The harder they tried, the more they fell because they became aware that the Law increased sin.

That is why when Paul said: “teloV gar nomou CristoV” (Christ is the end of the law) as far as the Law and establishing a right standing before God, the Law has come to an end. No longer can man plea to God “Look how well I’ve kept the commandments and the Law.” The Law has been disposed from it place as mediator between God and man, and Christ has rightfully taken its place.

Borrowing from Paul’s great defense against “legalism” we need to remember three things from the book of Galatians:

First, Paul answers that the law was added to identify sin as transgression against God. In doing so, the law did more than just identify sin, it condemned those who did these acts. And while the world was under the power of sin, the Jews were imprisoned and guarded by the law (3:22). The law was meant to guard Israel until the arrival of Christ.

Second, Paul is desperately trying to sway the minds of the Gentiles in the Galatian church. When the law was in effect, not only were the Jews guarded, but the Gentiles were excluded from the promises of God. The Jews had so hoarded the promise of God by living it in a legalistic manner, that Gentiles were looked at with contempt and considered slaves like Ishmael. To return to the law willingly would place the Gentiles in the position that the Jews were once in, to be condemned by the law, and to find themselves excluded by the very nature of the law. Being in Christ means freedom from the condemnation the law naturally brings. Paul yearned for the Galatians to remain in the freedom of Christ and removed from the restraint of the law that had formerly enslaved them as Gentiles.

Lastly, according to Paul then, the law was neither positive nor negative; it was merely a necessity. More importantly it was a necessity for only a limited time, a time that had come and gone. Since that time had been superseded with the arrival of Christ, to continue to live under the law would go back to the time before Christ. No longer would the Gentiles be free, but the law that had condemned the Jews for centuries would now condemn the Gentiles.

See, I have studied, and I too can make looooooooooooong posts.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tallen]

Jesus Christ:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-19 KJV)

Hmmm... seems Messiah's teaching is against the antinomianism being taught it this forum.

 

[Tallen]

You still haven't dealt with Acts 10:34-35. When are you going to address it?

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

 

[DeaconDean]

You still haven't dealt with Acts 10:34-35. When are you going to address it?

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

And you still have not addressed the fact that God has already declared us (believers) as righteous.

And, you still have not defined what exactly is a "work of righteousness".

If God has declared me as "righteous" what more must I do?

Can a person become "more righteous"?

And you still have not addressed the fact that Paul said God has already:

"made us accepted in the beloved." -Eph. 1:6 (KJV)

And you have not addressed the fact that Paul said:

"ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." -Rom. 12:1 (KJV)

1. Define for me, what is a "work of righteousness".
2. Explain why Paul says I am already "accepted in the beloved" and you don't accept it.
3. Explain to me why Paul and the Greek, already says I am already righteous by a declaration of God, so why should I need "works of righteousness" to be "accepted of him".
4. Explain why Paul say that what we are to do is what is said in Rom. 12:1.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tallen]

And you still have not addressed the fact that God has already declared us (believers) as righteous.

Sure I did, you didn't understand it.

Define for me, what is a "work of righteousness".

Already did that.

Explain why Paul says I am already "accepted in the beloved" and you don't accept it.

Adressed that to. Go back and reread the thread.

Explain to me why Paul and the Greek, already says I am already righteous by a declaration of God, so why should I need "works of righteousness" to be "accepted of him".

I'll do this when you address the scripture we are talking about. After all, the discussion is about Acts 10, and the context of what was said. Not about a bunch of other verses that you are using to try to avoid what the Apostle says.

BTW, these are the Apostle's words, not mine.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Act 10:34-35 KJV)

Explain why Paul say that what we are to do is what is said in Rom. 12:1.

Why not address the scripture that the thread is about? Why is it that you are trying so awefully hard to avoid these words of the Apostle? Do you suppose he slipped up when he said them and that they don't apply to us?

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Act 10:34-35 KJV)

Look DD, you are trying very hard to avoid these words, why is that? What do you suppose he meant when he penned these words by the Holy Spirit? Let's deal with this, and then move beyond the context. Don't highjack the thread because these words don't fit your antinomian theology and are an offense to you. What did the Apostle mean when he said, "But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

Otherwise we are spinning our wheels if you can't address the words that the thread is about. You can dig up all the antinomian theologians you want, you can post your ideas about Greek words, and you can post out of context verses, and all the things you are doing..., but you haven't addressed these words.

I see no reason to continue this with you if you continue to be evasive, obtuse and equivocating. I realize your personal theology is offended, but that does nothing toward adressing the Apostle's words.

Blessings.

 

[DeaconDean]

Sure I did, you didn't understand it.

Talk about being obtuse!

Already did that.

Obeying the "Law" is what you said.

Please define exactly what is a work of righteousness.

Adressed that to. Go back and reread the thread.

So you still refuse to answer in plain words what the Apostle Paul said in Eph. 1:6.

Uh huh.

I'll do this when you address the scripture we are talking about. After all, the discussion is about Acts 10, and the context of what was said. Not about a bunch of other verses that you are using to try to avoid what the Apostle says.

No I'm not, I'm comparing what one Apostle (Peter) said to what another Apostle (Paul) said.

How do you reconcil these two?

BTW, these are the Apostle's words, not mine.

Rom. 12:1; Eph. 1:6 are Pauls words. not mine.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Act 10:34-35 KJV)

Why not address the scripture that the thread is about? Why is it that you are trying so awefully hard to avoid these words of the Apostle? Do you suppose he slipped up when he said them and that they don't apply to us?

Like I said, I'm comparing one Apostles words to another.

Does Peters words take presidence over Pauls?

Look DD, you are trying very hard to avoid these words, why is that? What do you suppose he meant when he penned these words by the Holy Spirit? Let's deal with this, and then move beyond the context. Don't highjack the thread because these words don't fit your antinomian theology and are an offense to you. What did the Apostle mean when he said, "But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

Otherwise we are spinning our wheels if you can't address the words that the thread is about. You can dig up all the antinomian theologians you want, you can post your ideas about Greek words, and you can post out of context verses, and all the things you are doing..., but you haven't addressed these words.

I see no reason to continue this with you if you continue to be evasive, obtuse and equivocating. I realize your personal theology is offended, but that does nothing toward adressing the Apostle's words.

Blessings.

Because you are advocating a "works" based righteousness.

Paul says we are already righteous by judical declaration of God.

Paul says we are already declared that we are "accepted in the beloved".

So why do I need works for righteousness?

Why do I need works to be accepted?

Its you who think I have an "antinomian theology".

It is you who have come in here, and flamed me calling me that.

The best illustration of this is seen in the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. When the father accepts his wayward son, it is full acceptance: the son immediately is given a fine robe to show his father’s favor, and a ring to show he once again has legal authority as a son of his father.
The acceptance is free: no conditions are stated; no action or any goodness at all in the son merits the Father’s acceptance of Him.

Actually, under Jewish law the son could have been put to death for his behavior, and at the very least the father should disown him. But no, the father both forgives him and fully and freely accepts him. For those of us who have had experiences of conditional acceptance in relationships, the preciousness of full and free acceptance is very real.

Lastly, for the Christian God’s acceptance is forever. Nothing can snatch us out of God’s hand (John 10:28-29), and nothing can separate us from His love (Romans 8:35-39). We can rest in God’s complete and uninterrupted acceptance no matter the fears and doubts that may assail our hearts.

What are the results of focusing on God’s acceptance? As already mentioned, it brings great peace and joy to our hearts. It also gives us the freedom to accept others as God has accepted us, in the same way that relishing in God’s forgiveness of us helps us to forgive others (see Matthew 18). Knowing God’s acceptance also encourages us in our quest for righteousness and holiness. Knowing that God sees us as lovely, we long to become ever more lovely in His sight, yet we now do not do it out of compulsion or fear or bargaining, but out of a joyful, loving, and grateful heart.

Dwell on God’s acceptance of you today, and let it spur you to feel more loved, to be more loving, and to become more lovely for God’s glory.

The bottom line is, when we came to the cross, broken in spirit, willing to repent and believe, the moment we accepted Christ into our lives as Lord and Savior, we became accepted in the beloved and righteous.

And you my friend, are advocating a "works" based righteousness whereby we can be accepted in the Lord.

Even though Paul said he had as far as the Law was concerned:

"Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." -Phil. 3:6 (KJV)

He eventually said what he counted for gain was nothing more than loss. (vs. 7)

And neither before or after the Christ event in our lives, can works bring about righteousness. (Gal. 2:21)

I have already been clothed in the garments of righteousness:

"I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels." -Isa. 61:10 (KJV)

See that:

"he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness"

Praise God I am just like the prodigal son, dressed in the best robe, (cf. Lk. 15:22) the robe of righteousness.

I'm so sad you can't or won't see that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[heymikey80]

You still haven't dealt with Acts 10:34-35. When are you going to address it?

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

A couple of points.

Peter says "who", not "how".

There's a personal association between those who fear God and work righteousness, and God's acceptance or tolerance of them. That was flatly clear in contrary when Israel invaded Canaanite lands. God's toleration of the Canaanites was at an end.

Peter says "accepted", not "saved". "Not everything is soteriology." We're probably looking at God's comparative approach to Gentiles, in comparison with His approach to Jewish people. Not all Jewish people are saved; not all Gentiles are saved; none is saved by working righteousness: a way is prepared for the Gospel among a people that fear God and do conventionally righteous acts.

It's interesting as well that Peter starts with this statement, he doesn't end with it. Peter doesn't know Cornelius' response. It would be premature of Peter to conclude Cornelius' household is saved at this point. So it's highly unlikely Peter is talking about justification, but simply works of righteousness.

Given Peter's vision preceding this visit, the question is who God is willing to present the Gospel to.

 

[Tallen]

For my answer to your question, look HERE, otherwise I am tired of your equivocation and avoidance to the verses this thread is talking about.

TYFYT

 

[Tallen]

A couple of points.

Peter says "who", not "how".

You lost me on this point.

There's a personal association between those who fear God and work righteousness, and God's acceptance or tolerance of them. That was flatly clear in contrary when Israel invaded Canaanite lands. God's toleration of the Canaanites was at an end.

Agreed.

Peter says "accepted", not "saved". "Not everything is
soteriology."

That has already been pointed out, and our antinomian friend avoided that post.

We're probably looking at God's comparative approach to Gentiles, in comparison with His approach to Jewish people. Not all Jewish people are saved; not all Gentiles are saved; none is saved by working righteousness: a way is prepared for the Gospel among a people that fear God and do conventionally righteous acts.

I think I agree. I do agree that no one is regenerated/saved by their own acts of righteousness.

It's interesting as well that Peter starts with this statement, he doesn't end with it. Peter doesn't know Cornelius' response. It would be premature of Peter to conclude Cornelius' household is saved at this point. So it's highly unlikely Peter is talking about justification, but simply works of righteousness.

OK

Given Peter's vision preceding this visit, the question is who God is willing to present the Gospel to.

I don't know how this fits into the discussion, so far. But..., the verses as used in the OP were misused to say that God isn't a respecter of any person, he sees every man the same. This is unscriptural and not taught in these two verses. In fact, these verses say exactly opposite of what was intended in the OP.

 

[DeaconDean]

That has already been pointed out, and our antinomian friend avoided that post.

I'm giving you fair warning.

Do not call me that again!

Ask anybody who is a member of the SR area and they will tell that I am not an antinomian.

So once more and I shall persue other courses.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I have never advocated the position of "lawlessness".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[heymikey80]

You lost me on this point.

Cause isn't described in this couple of verses -- association is described, the cause is left implied or non-explicit.

I don't know how this fits into the discussion, so far. But..., the verses as used in the OP were misused to say that God isn't a respecter of any person, he sees every man the same. This is unscriptural and not taught in these two verses. In fact, these verses say exactly opposite of what was intended in the OP.

Um, well, the verse actually says God is not a respecter of persons, and that this is how He's not a respecter of persons. Our interpretation of "respecter of persons" tries to avoid such associations, while Peter's interpretation takes it head-on.

And no, DeaconDean's not antinomian.

 

[Tallen]

DD, in this thread you are arguing a classical antinomian position, from where I sit. Sorry that offends you, but that is what you are doing.

 

[Tallen]

Cause isn't described in this couple of verses -- association is described, the cause is left implied or non-explicit.

I agree that the verse isn't soteriological in nature. That was already stated.

Um, well, the verse actually says God is not a respecter of persons, and that this is how He's not a respecter of persons. Our interpretation of "respecter of persons" tries to avoid such associations, while Peter's interpretation takes it head-on.

Actually the verse says:

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Act 10:34-35 KJV)

This is a very good translation. Those that feareth him and work righteousness are accepted. In those, YHWH accepts them without respect to their person. This is quite different than what the OP implied, as YHWH does respect persons. He respects those that are of His covenant over those that are not. Read Dueteronmy 28-32 and Psalms 119, for instance.

And no, DeaconDean's not antinomian.

He shouldn't be arguing that position then. From where I sit as Reformed believer, he is arguing against the believer following the law and doing works of righteousness as the law prescribes The alternative is what he has argued, the law is aborrogated by the work of Christ, which is the classical antinomian argument. BTW, I have posted the Reformed position in this thread.

 

[Tallen]

I have never advocated the position of "lawlessness".

You are advocating that the law of YHWH has been abrogated by the shed blood of Christ. This is called antinomianism.

"Antinomianism (Greek anti,"against"; nomos,"law") is the doctrine that faith in Christ frees the Christian from obligation to observe the moral law as set forth in the Old Testament."

"Some have taught that once persons are justified by faith in Christ, they no longer have any obligation toward the moral law because Jesus has freed them from it."

Source: READ ME.

 

[DeaconDean]

You are advocating that the law of YHWH has been abrogated by the shed blood of Christ. This is called antinomianism.

"Antinomianism (Greek anti,"against"; nomos,"law") is the doctrine that faith in Christ frees the Christian from obligation to observe the moral law as set forth in the Old Testament."

"Some have taught that once persons are justified by faith in Christ, they no longer have any obligation toward the moral law because Jesus has freed them from it."

Source: READ ME.

Antinomianism

(a term coined by Martin Luther, from the Greek ἀντί, "against" + νόμος, "law"), is a belief or tendency in all religions that some therein consider existing laws as no longer applicable to themselves. The term originated in the context of a minority Protestant view that since faith itself alone is sufficient to attain salvation, adherence to religious law is not necessary, and religious laws themselves are set aside or "abrogated" as inessential. While the concept is related to the foundational Protestant belief of Sola Fide where justification is through faith alone in Christ; it is taken to an extreme.

Source

Antinomianism teaches that the "Law" as contained in the Pentetauch, does not apply anymore.

That since a persons sins (before and after the Christ event) has been provided for, they can live with sin because it (forgiveness and propitation) is there.

I have never advocated that position.

What I do advocate is, Rabbinic Judaism taught that man's position, man's right standing before God stood in his position to the Law.

Materially, the Rabbinic understanding of the Torah may be summed up in two inwardly related principles: 1) God has revealed Himself once and for all and exclusively in the Torah; 2) Man has his relationship with God only in his relationship with the Torah...All other relations between God on the one side, man, Israel, and the world on the other, are subject to the Torah...The aim of the Torah is to show man what he should do and not do in order that, obedient to the Torah, he may have God’s approval, righteousness, life, and a share in the future world of God. “Why has God given us the commandments? Is it not that we may do them and receive a reward?”

TDNT, p. 1061-63

Jesus has removed the Torah from its place of mediation between God and man. Man's right standing before God is no longer depenant on how well he has or hasn't kept the Law.

As far as righteousness of the Law, Christ is the end of that too.

Pauline theology had not fully developed at the time of Acts 10.

But comparing Apostle to Apostle, Paul trumps Peter.

The Law, not even the Decalogue can make one single person "righteous", let alone accepted unto Him.

When we come to Christ, our sins are imputed to Him, and His righteousness is imputed to us. Therefore, I am already "righteous".

And because I am righteous, I am already accepted.

Now I do agree that faith produces works, works that can be varified.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits...Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -Mt. 7:16, 20 (KJV)

But "works" cannot and will not produce righteousness nor acceptance.

And the point of the thief on the cross was to show that he had no "worketh righteousness" and was "accepted with him".

Show me the works of the thief on the cross.

If "works" are needed for righteousness and to be accepted with Him, then millions upon millions upon millions of men and women who repented and accepted Christ at the moment of death, are not saved. Their confession and repentance was worthless.

Because they did not "worketh righteousness" to be "accepted with Him".

The ultimate "work of righteousness" was done on the cross by Christ himself. Anything less just won't cut it.

As far following the "moral law" well, that's splitting hairs because there are a lot contained in the so-called "moral Laws".

Do you have sex with your wife during her monthly?

If you have, you have disobeyed God's moral law concerning this. (cf. Lev. 18:19)

Do you have a "knee wall" around the roof of your house?

If not, you have disobeyed God's moral Law concerning your brother. (cf. Deut. 22:8)

Idolitry, fits into both the category of trangression of ritual and ceremonal Law.

I could go on, and on.

As concerning the material understanding of the Law in Paul, the cross of Christ is decisive. In the statement that the crucified Jesus is the Christ, the whole of Paul’s thinking has its controlling center, including what he says about the Law. Only in this light is there a meaningful, indeed, an inwardly necessary, connection between his affirmation and negation of the Law. Otherwise one could only conclude that there are two trains of thought, the one conservative and affirmative, the other negative and radical. In Paul, the negation of the Law is a consequence of the cross, Gal. 2:21: “ei gar dia nomou dikaiosunh, ara CristoV dwrean apeqanen” (if for through law righteousness, then Christ without cause died) if Rom. 7:1ff.; 8:1ff. Freedom from the Law could be achieved in this way alone. This is grounded in the specific nature and operation of the Spirit.

But outside the death of Christ and death with Christ, man is still “en kosmw” and hence delivered up to the Law, Col. 2:20. Thus the statement in Rom. 10:4: “teloV gar nomou CristoV eiV dikaiosunhn panti tw pisteuonti,” does not simply mean that the age of the Law has ended with the coming of Jesus. The Law and Christ do not succeed as one another in temporal history or even in religious history. The transition takes place in salvation history. Only for him who in faith appropriates the righteousness of God in Christ, is the Law abolished.

TDNT p. 1066

One should have works to show as evidence of said faith, but to produce righteousness and acceptance with Him, no.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Anoetos]

Actually, the view that the Law of Moses has been completed, fulfilled and put to rest in Christ, and therefore is no longer conditionally requisite for the faithful, although it remains as a curb, a guide and a mirror is known as Christianity.

 

[Tallen]

Pauline theology had not fully developed at the time of Acts 10.

Your kidding right? This wasn't Pauline theology it was from a direct revelation to Peter. So once again we are left with your maginalizing and trivializing the Apostle's words.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Act 10:34-35 KJV)

 

[Tallen]

But "works" cannot and will not produce righteousness nor acceptance.

DD, it is the works of a person that is judged. I agree that we are not saved/regenerated because of our works, but we are to continue to be obedient to YHWH and his Commandments. Our works are our fruit of our walk with Him.

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
(Jas 2:18-24 KJV)

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
(1Co 3:13-15 KJV)

Also, once again, I will point out that our works are not what we are saved by, that we agree about, but our works of righteousness determine our standing to the covenant we are in.

And finally, I will point out once again what Messiah has said.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Mat 5:17-19 KJV)

Notice the words of Messiah, whosoever shall do and teach the law and the prophets shall be great in the kingdom of heaven.

Blessings, as we go over the same ideas again.