• 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!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Should Christians Walk in the God's Ways?

Discussion in 'Sabbath and The Law' started by Soyeong, Oct 27, 2017.

  1. Yes

    9 vote(s)
    90.0%
  2. No

    1 vote(s)
    10.0%
  3. Maybe

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Bob S

    Bob S Well-Known Member Supporter

    +928
    Christian
    Married
    Could the law save one Israelite? If you answer no then why do you think the law was, in any way, salvational? Torah was given to one nation, Israel, for the way God wanted them to live. It was never meant to be the recipe for anyone's salvation. Yet some come on the forum trying to persuade others that we Christians must observe those governing laws that were meant for only the nation of Israel. Israelites came out of slavery ignorant of how to govern themselves, God gave them the law as the means to accomplish how they were to live. It was a covenant and Israel broke that covenant. Jesus then, at His death ratified the new covenant with His own blood. It is a covenant of love and forgiveness, an everlasting covenant with no IFs.

    Jesus lived under the laws of Israel. He taught the law because the law was still in enforce. As mentioned the law was fulfilled at Calvary and our covenant replaced the one given to Israel. All mankind is invited to be born again by accepting Jesus and His new covenant.
     
  2. rrobsr

    rrobsr Active Member

    172
    +83
    Christian
    Married
    Only one verse from Paul's letters (Gal 5:22-23), the part of the Bible that was actually specifically written to born again Christians?
     
  3. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,024
    Messianic
    Single
    I'm trying to get you acknowledge what this thread is about and engage with what I've said in my OP. I've quoted a number of verses that make it explicitly and implicitly clear that what God taught to Moses was how to walk in His ways. So if it is true that we should walk in God's ways and it is true that what God taught to Moses was how to walk in His ways, then it therefore follows that we should walk according to what God taught to Moses. The form of this argument is valid, so the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, which means that it is illogical to accept the truth of the premises while making separate arguments against the truth of the conclusion. So please contest one of both of my premises or logically accept the truth of my conclusion. I don't mind discussing other verses that you think contradict my conclusion, but that should not be done while not engaging with anything I said to support my conclusion, which this thread is primarily about.

    I did not disregard the verses that you posted, but explained how they are consistent with my position. I did not say anything about wanting you to deny Jeremiah or to disregard the NT or to disregard Jesus or to tear you away from the New Covenant. I take the position that the New Covenant requires us to walk in God's ways in accordance with the example that Jesus set for his followers to follow.

    So by disagreeing with my conclusion, you are either arguing against Moses or against walking in God's ways. I agree that we are under a New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, but we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same attributes and the same ways to act in accordance with those attributes. When God has given instructions to His followers for how to walk in His ways, it doesn't make any sense for people who want to become followers of God to refuse to follow those instructions because they were only given to God's followers and not to people like them who were not God's followers. Israel was intended to be a light to the other nations, teaching them about God and how to walk in His ways in accordance with His Law (Isaiah 2:2-3).

    Again, in Romans 7:21-25 Paul said he delighted in obeying God's Law and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted it with the law of sin that held him captive that he served with his mind. This is a summary statement of what he said previously, so it is the law of sin that came about to increase tresspasses (5:20), to stir up sinful passions to bear fruit unto death (7:5), that held him captive (7:6), that gave sin its power (7:8), that deceived him through the commandment and slew him (7:11), and that caused him not to do the good that he wanted (7:13-20), while God's Law is not the law of sin, but reveals what sin is (7:7), is holy, righteous, and good (7:12), is the good that Paul did not blame for bringing death to him (7:13), and is the good that Paul wanted to do (7:13-20). In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as one where sin had dominion over us, which perfectly fits with his description of the law of sin, but does not at all fit with his description of God's holy, righteous, and good law.

    According to Romans 3:31, our faith does not do away without need to obey the Law, but rather our faith leads us to obey it. If your faith doesn't lead you to obey the Law, then your faith is not upholding it.

    I don't expect you to answer any of my questions. And that is OK.[/QUOTE]

    Paul said that he served God's Law with his mind, so the inward man is what he desired to do and knew what was, not his flesh that served the law of sin. According to Titus 2:14, Christ gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and according Romans 6:18-19, we have been set free from sin in order to become slaves of righteousness, not presenting ourselves as slaves of impurity and Lawlessness, but as slaves of righteousness leading to sanctification. We have been set free from living in disobedience to God so that we can be free to live in obedience to Him.

    In Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was inviting people to become his disciples and a disciple was someone who had the goal of memorizing their rabbi's teaching, or learning how to think and act like them, and to essentially become a copy of them. So we should not disassociate what he was inviting people to follow with what he taught by word and by example. Rather, by saying that we would find rest for our souls, he was refencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where the Law is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls.

    It doesn't follow from the fact that righteousness doesn't come by the Law that therefore it is righteous to not keep the Law, far from it. For example, the Law reveals that it is in accordance with God's righteousness to help the poor, but no amount of helping the poor will ever cause someone who is not righteous to become righteous because the one and only way that there has ever been to become righteous is by faith, but by the same faith that declares us to be righteous we are also therefore required to do what is righteous. So we are to do what is righteous because we have been declared to be righteous and because that is the vocation of someone who is righteous, not in order to become righteous.
     
  4. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,024
    Messianic
    Single
    The Law was not given as instructions for how to become saved, but as instructions for how those who have been saved should therefore act. It is related to our salvation in that our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from living in transgression of the Law for the purpose coming into obedience to it. According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful, and this an accurate description of what God's Law was given to instruct how to do. I agree that the Law was given to Israel, but the role that God had for Israel was to be a light to the nations, teaching them about God and how to walk in His ways in accordance with His Law (Isaiah 2:2-3). Walking in God's ways is not just for Jews, but for all desire to be followers of God and to be restored into His image in accordance with the example that Jesus set for his followers to follow. I agree that we are under a New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, but we are still nevertheless under the same God with the same eternal attributes and with the same eternal ways to act in accordance with those attributes. The Law is God's instructions for how to do what is holy, righteous, and good, and to refrain from sin, and as part of the New Covenant, we are still told to do what is holy, righteous, and good, and to refrain from sin. Jesus fulfilled the Law by causing God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law, so it does not refer to something unique that Jesus did.
     
  5. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,024
    Messianic
    Single
    Everything listed in Galatians 5:22-23 are based on the attributes of God that were revealed in the OT. If you agree that born again Christians should walk in God's ways and that God instruct Moses in how to walk in His ways, then you should therefore agree that born again Christians to walk in accordance with what God instructed to Moses.
     
  6. Bob S

    Bob S Well-Known Member Supporter

    +928
    Christian
    Married
    Where are you finding that the Israelites that came out of slavery, probably didn't understand salvation by faith, to be a saved people?

    What law is 1Jn referring to? Keeping the law is not related to keeping laws, see the writings of Paul in the new covenant.

    I guess it depends at whose feet you are setting at as to what instructions you use to define sin. Maybe you define it as disregarding the ritual laws of the old covenant, I don't

    .
    Isaiah made some strange prophesies. We know that God did give us a new and better covenant. Jesus is now our high Priest setting at the right hand of the father. Our covenant is better than the old one with better promises. the old one promised to give Israel the land of Canaan. The new one promises to give us an eternal home forever.

    Jess example was to fellow Jews under the Mosaic covenant. I peeked at your next sentence and note that you don't believe e are under the laws that Jesus was under. So, when you tell us to walk as Jesus did or as God does we have to take all that into consideration. In other words why would I feel the need to keep feast days for Israel's special occasions? They were special to Israel only. I do not harvest Barley nor am I a product of those who observed Passover.


    Under the same God who sacrificed His Son that Jews might have eternal life. Under the one who planned our salvation before the foundation of the Earth. God treated Noah differently than Abraham and Abraham different than Israel. He is treating Christians differently.

    The law was not eternal. It ended at the Cross. Where there is no Israel there is no law. Israel of old is history.
    And that law is called the Royal Law of Love. It covers all sins not just the few from the 10.

    Why is it so very hard to envision Jesus giving us a new law to live by? Read in green below how we know we belong to the truth. I see nothing in John's writings that would indicate we are to keep Torah as a tribute to God. That is a foreign concept.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  7. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    Commanded to Moses and Israel , yes and amen. Commanded to Christians, NO.

    bugkiller
     
  8. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    Other than the 4th commandment, what is your beef? Are people here guilty of the things you listed from Gal 5:19-21?

    bugkiller
     
  9. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    Who do you think you are fooling?

    bugkiller
     
  10. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    Sorry but Moses does not over ride Jesus. Jesus is God. Moses is not.

    bugkiller
     
  11. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,024
    Messianic
    Single
    Where did I say anything about them probably not understanding salvation by faith or to be a saved people? In Deuteronomy 6:20-24, Obedience to God's Law was about having faith in God to bring them up out of bondage in Egypt, faith in God to defeat Pharaoh, faith in God to bring them to the land that He promised their fathers, faith in God to preserve them, and faith in God that what He commanded was for their own good.

    According to Romans 3:20, the Law was given to make us conscious of sin and according to Romans 7:7, Paul would not have even known what sin was if it weren't for the Law. When Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, the Law was what they could read to find out what their sins are, so repenting from our disobedience to God's Law is an integral part of the Gospel message. Straightforwardly, sin is disobedience to God's commands, so it very clearly is speaking about God's Law.

    So you think that the Israelites were free to disobey those commands without sinning? No, any disobedience to God's commands is sin. The ritual laws are no less part of God's instructions for how to walk in His ways in accordance with His holiness. In 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a reference to Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to act in accordance with His holiness, so you have the choice to delight in our God's commands or to spurn them, but it is always sin to disobey any of His commands.

    The prophecy is fairly straightforward and easy to understand. I completely agree that we are under a New Covenant based upon better promises, but we are still nevertheless under the same God with the same eternal attributes and with the same eternal ways to act in accordance with those attributes. Nowhere does the Bible say that the New Covenant is based on superior laws because that would involve following a superior God with superior ways.

    Nowhere does the Bible say that only Jews get to be followers of Jesus or that only Jews should follow his example. A Christian is by definition someone who seek to follow his teachings by word and by example. When God has given instructions to His followers for how to walk in His ways, it doesn't make any sense for people who want to become followers of God to refuse to follow those instructions because they were only given to God's followers and not to people like them who were not God's followers.

    I have no idea why you might think that I don't believe that we are under the laws that Jesus was under. It's me who is saying that we should walk in the same way that Jesus walked, but rather that's what Scripture says. Walking as Jesus walked involves walking in God's ways in accordance with His Law. Jesus set an example of keeping his Feasts, are we told to follow his example, to walk in the same way that he walked, and to be imitators of him. The Feasts are incredible rich with teachings about the Messiah, about God's plan of redemption, and are important foreshadows or rehearsals about what we will we doing during Messiah's reign, so we should not deprive ourselves of their delight. You are focusing too much on who the laws were given to and not enough on who they were given by because they were not intructions for how to live like Jews, but for how to walk in God's ways.

    In Genesis 6:8-9, it says that Noah found grace in the eyes of God and that he was a righteous man. This was by no accident, but rather he was trained how to walking God's ways by grace and was righteous because he obeyed through faith. God only has one standard of righteousness and it would be unjust for God to punish Israel for doing things that we feel free to do. We are told to learn from Israel's example of disobedience so that we don't do the same things that they did, not to emulate it.

    God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so too therefore are all of God's righteous laws (Psalms 119:160). The Law instructs us how to walk in God ways in accordance with God's attributes, so if God's righteous Law were to come to an end, then it would only be because God's eternal righteousness first came to an end. If Sodom and Gomorrah weren't obligated to live according to God's righteousness in accordance with His Law, then He would have had no just grounds by which to judge them for being wicked, or to judge the world with a flood, or in the end times. We are all obligated whether we agree or not.

    Crosses were never used as a means of disposing of laws, but rather what was written on crosses were the charges against the person being crucified or the violations of the law that they had committed in order to explain why they were being crucified (Matthew 27:37). This fits perfectly with the analogy of our sins or violations of God's Law being nailed to his cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but does not fit at all with God doing away with His righteous standard. There is nothing in the Bible that speaks about God's righteous standard ending on the cross.

    In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Law as being instructions for how God wants us to love Him and our neighbor, so the Mosaic Law is the Royal Law of Love.

    According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what the Father had commanded, so if you think that he added a brand new law, then you should think that he sinned and therefore disqualified himself from being our Savior. According to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against following what He had commanded, even if they performed signs and wonders, so if you think that Jesus did that, then you should consider him to be a false prophet even though he performed miracles and rose from the dead. Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so I'll ask you this: why is it so hard for you to envision that Jesus taught all of his followers how to rightly live by word and by example? Do you trust God when He said that what He commanded was for His people's own good? Why aren't you eager to seek our what God has revealed in any of His covenants for how He wants to be loved?

    In John 14:23-24, Jesus said that whoever loves him will obey His teachings, whoever does not love him will not obey his teachings, and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so to say that Jesus added his own teachings or departed in the slightest from what the Father taught is to say that he lied. Do you agree with Jesus that someone who does not keep the Father's teachings does not love him?

    ---

    At this point, I will note that we have gone down a number of different rabbit trails, but you have to even address what this thread is about. Namely, that if you agree that NT Christians should walk in God's ways and you agree that God taught Moses how walk in His ways, then you should agree that we should walk in accordance with what God taught to Moses.
     
  12. Bob S

    Bob S Well-Known Member Supporter

    +928
    Christian
    Married
    Well Soyeong, you may believe we have gone down rabbit trails, But I see from going down those trails that your agenda is far different from mine. I will not try to critique your posts after this post. You know what I believe to be the truth and I accept the fact that at this point you are not willing to agree with what I have presented. What confuses me is that you wrote the following: "I agree that we are under a New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, but....." (change mine) "we are still nevertheless under the same God with the same eternal attributes and with the same eternal ways to act in accordance with those attributes." You just had to use a qualifier that negated the first part of your thought. Either Jesus fulfilled the covenant with Israel or He didn't. Fulfill means to bring to an end. I do not see any qualifier to put mankind under the laws that Jesus brought to an end. In Christ, Bob
     
  13. FreeAtLast

    FreeAtLast Messianic Jew

    298
    +253
    United States
    Messianic
    Private
    US-Others
    1) The "rabbit trails" as you call them, are in direct response to your erroneous assertions that we, as born again Believers in Yeshua, must adhere to the Law of Moses. The responses given to you are correct and relevant to show you the Scriptures which prove you wrong. Please heed them.

    2) This thread is about pushing the Law of Moses onto born again Believers in Yeshua who are not under the Law. That's what it's about, and it's false doctrine.

    3) You simply putting it in a box with a pretty bow and saying "walk in G-d's ways" is disingenuous at best. G-d's ways are ALL His Scripture, not just the ones you highlight (the Law of Moses) and in HIS Scripture, it is made clear that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled by Yeshua and replaced by Yeshua's New Covenant.

    4) Please stop playing word games when you are just floating more Mosaic Law false doctrine.
     
  14. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,024
    Messianic
    Single
    You are brought up a number of issues that are related to the topic, which I am happy to discuss, but you are arguing against my conclusion without saying anything in regard to the points that made in my opening post to support my conclusion, which this thread is about, so I am just trying to steer our conversation to at least be inclusive of that.

    That's you're choice, but my goal was not to get you to withdraw from the conversation.

    I do not agree with you about what it means to be under the New Covenant, so the issue is not that I don't agree that we are under the New Covenant, but that I object to your understanding of it. You seem to have concept of a New Covenant that it is made with a different God than the God of the OT, who has different attributes and different ways to act in accordance with those attributes, whereas I believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. For example, God's righteousness is eternal and unchanging, so the way to act in accordance with His righteousness is likewise eternal and unchanging, and therefore is the same in any covenant in that God has ever made or will ever make. So the Mosaic Covenant can be ended, but the Mosaic Law instructs us how to walk in God's ways in accordance with God's attributes, so it will always remain valid as long as God's attributes remain the same.

    Jesus did not give himself to free us from the Mosaic Law, but to free us from Lawlessness (Titus 2:14). The problem with the Mosaic Covenant was not with God's righteous standard or with His instructions for how to live according to that standard, but rather the fault was with the people who broke the covenant because of the hardness of their hearts. So the solution to the problem is not to do away with God's instructions for how to walk in His ways, but to do away with what was hindering us from walking in His ways. This is why the New Covenant involves God taking away our heart of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and putting His Spirit in us to cause us to obey His Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27).
     
  15. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,024
    Messianic
    Single
    I agree that the rabbit trails are related to the OP because they disagree with my conclusion and I am happy to discuss them, but my point is that people who disagree with my conclusion should at least engage with the reasons that I gave for supporting my conclusion.

    I agree that we are not under the law, but I disagree that we are not under God's Law. In Romans 7:21-25 Paul said he delighted in obeying God's Law and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted it with the law of sin that held him captive that he served with his mind. This is a summary statement of what he said previously, so it is the law of sin that came about to increase tresspasses (5:20), to stir up sinful passions to bear fruit unto death (7:5), that held him captive (7:6), that gave sin its power (7:8), that deceived him through the commandment and slew him (7:11), and that caused him not to do the good that he wanted (7:13-20), while God's Law is not the law of sin, but reveals what sin is (7:7), is holy, righteous, and good (7:12), is the good that Paul did not blame for bringing death to him (7:13), and is the good that Paul wanted to do (7:13-20). In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as one where sin had dominion over us, which perfectly fits with his description of the law of sin, but does not at all fit with his description of God's holy, righteous, and good law. Furthermore, all the surrounding context of Romans 6:12-19 is in support of keeping the Mosaic Law, so I see no grounds to interpret verse 14 as saying that we are not under it instead of not being under the law of sin.

    I agree that Yeshua fulfilled the Law. "To fulfill the Law" is defined as " to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should" and that is precisely what Yeshua immediately proceeded to do six times throughout the rest of Matthew 5 after he said he came full the Law. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law, so it does not refer to something unique that Yeshua did, but to obeying the Law as it should be. Likewise, in Galatians 6:2, it says that bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, which does not refer to doing away with it, but to obeying it as it should be. In Romans 15:18-19, it says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, which does not refer to doing away with it, but to fully teaching it and causing Gentiles to obey it in word and indeed as they should. The phrase "fulfilling the Law" is also used in the same manner in other Jewish writings, so it was not something only Yeshua did and is not accomplished only by living in perfect obedience to it, though that would be one of many examples of fulfilling the Law.

    I also agree that we are under the New Covenant, but we are nevertheless under the same God with the same attributes and with the same way to act in His ways in accordance with those attribute. The Mosaic Law instructs us how to walk in God ways in accordance with His attributes and in accordance with the example that Yeshua set for his followers to follow. So the Mosaic Law will always remain valid instructions for how to walk in accordance with God's attributes as long as God's eternal attributes remain the same regardless of which covenant we are under. In addition, I see no reason to think that the New Covenant involved something other than what Yeshua taught by word and by example.

    Furthermore, I also that all of Scripture teaches us to walk in God's ways, but everything that is taught in the NT is based off of what is taught in the OT, so including everything taught in the NT doesn't change what it means to walk in God's ways. If you agree that we are to walk in God's ways, which are inclusive of all Scripture, which is inclusive of the Mosaic Law, then you should agree that the way that we live in accordance with the Mosaic Law.

    Yeshua was sinless, which means that he set a perfect example for his followers to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, as as his followers, we are told that we ought to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6), and that we should be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 11:1). So the fact that teaching the followers of Christ that they should follow his example is considered false doctrine by some of them only goes to show how far they have fallen from the truth.
     
  16. FreeAtLast

    FreeAtLast Messianic Jew

    298
    +253
    United States
    Messianic
    Private
    US-Others
    Really? Where did you get that? To fulfill means to fill up to full. In completion. That is what Yeshua did. The Law of Moses had requirements. Yeshua filled every one so there are no more to fill. That is what He said, He did not come to abolish the Law (we are to learn from it) BUT, He fulfilled it, so there is no need to adhere to it any longer. It is dead.

    "It is important to note that the contrast is not between “abolish” and “observe,” but between “abolish” and “fulfill.” Jesus did not claim that He came to observe the Law or to keep the Law; rather He came to fulfill it."

    Fulfill: pleroo
    to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
      1. to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
        1. I abound, I am liberally supplied
    1. to render full, i.e. to complete
      1. to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim

      2. to consummate: a number
        1. to make complete in every particular, to render perfect

        2. to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
      3. to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
        1. of matters of duty: to perform, execute

        2. of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish

        3. to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

    So lookee! All the definitions state that this word means to complete. Way at the end is the uncommon usage that you cherry picked out to support your thesis.

    Sorry, the word means to full up so that there is no more room to add.

    That is because Yeshua filled the Law's requirements. We are not required to adhere to it.

    That is circular reasoning. We cannot be both under the Old and New Covenant at the same time, because according to the Scriptures, the Old is passed away and Yeshua's NEW Covenant is the better way.

    So, basically you are saying that what Yeshua did wasn't good enough, we need to add more Law to the mix.

    Nope, the Mosiac Law is no longer G-d's ways since Yeshua gave us His NEW Covenant at His death.

    You are rejecting it and Him. Choose you this day whom you will serve, the Mosaic Law or Yeshua (who IS G-d) and His New Covenant.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  17. faroukfarouk

    faroukfarouk Fading curmudgeon

    +15,062
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I love the words about the believer's situation now of depending on not the believer's law-keeping but 'all of grace'.

    "All of grace, yes grace surpassing,
    Such a portion to bestow,
    But the love, all knowledge passing,
    Grace has taught us now to know.

    Love that bore the stripes and sorrow,
    Love that suffered on the Tree,
    Love that shares the bright tomorrow
    With the love ones, you and me."
     
  18. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,024
    Messianic
    Single
    Fulfilling the Law also refers to filling up or completing one's understanding of it or to meeting one's obligation to it, so I do not see the other definitions as being at odds with the one I pciked and I picked the definition I did because it specifically mentioned being in regard to God's Law, it fits the best with the surrounding context, it fits the best with the context of the rest of the Bible, because other verses use the word in the same way, and because that it how it is used in other Jewish writings. When words have multiple meanings a good rule of hermeneutics to derive the correct meaning from the context, so can you derive anything from the surrounding context, from anything said in Matthew 5, from anything Yeshua said, or anything from the rest of the Bible that supports the definition that you've used in the sense that you've understood it?

    In Matthew 5:17-19, after Yeshua said he came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish, he said that not the least part would disappear from the Law until heaven and earth passed away and until all has been accomplished, neither of which has happened yet, both of which refer to end times are are ways of saying that it is never gonna happen. He went on to warn that whoever relaxed the least of the commands or taught others to do the same would be called least in the Kingdom, while whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom, and this is a warning that I think you should take seriously because I would much rather be called great in the Kingdom. In any case, there isn't much room to interpret fulfill the law as Yeshua saying that he came to make it so we no longer have to adhere to the law.

    Throughout the rest of Matthew 5, Yeshua proceeded to teach how to correctly obey the Law, which perfectly fits one of the listed definitions, which should give strong preference to it and require even you to provide even stronger justification for giving preference to a different definition. Furthermore, Yeshua did not say anything throughout his entire ministry specifically in regard to the concept of how you've defined the term. On the contrary, Jesus invited people to follow his example and to learn from him, and commissioned his disciples to make more disciples, teaching them everything that he taught them, which was inclusive of everything he taught by word and by example. There is nothing in the Bible that says that Yeshua gave himself so that we wouldn't have to follow him. The freedom that we have in Christ is not the freedom to do what God reveal to be sin, but the freedom from doing those things.

    Please explain how what I've said is circular. I have not said that we are under both the Old and New Covenant at the same time, but rather I agreed that we under a better New Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant. God's righteousness is eternal, so the way to act in accordance with His righteousness is likewise eternal, which means that from the beginning before God made any covenants with man there existed a way to practice righteousness, which is therefore not dependent on any particular covenant, though it has been revealed through them. So there is a distinction between a set of instructions for how to practice righteousness and a covenant agreement to live by those instructions. A covenant agreement can come and go, but the way to practice righteousness will always remain the same, so anyone who wants to look up how to practice righteousness can do so by reading God's instructions for that in the Mosaic Law, regardless of which covenant they are under, but as part of the New Covenant we are still required to practice righteousness (1 John 3:10). There is much evidence of many of God's laws already being in place throughout Genesis, so the way to practice righteousness did not change when the Mosaic or New Covenants were made, but rather those covenants revealed what has always been and will always be the way to practice righteousness.

    The Mosaic Law was given to instruct how to do what is holy, righteous, and good, and to refrain from sin and in the New Covenant, we are still instructed to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to refrain from sin. In Titus 2:11-14, it says that our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful, which is an accurate description of what God's Law was given to instruct. Furthermore, in verse 14, it does not say that Yeshua gave himself to free us from the Law, but to free us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, and God's Law is again His instructions for how to equip us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). So to return to the Lawlessness that Yeshua gave himself to redeem us from is to reject what he gave himself to accomplish.

    In Matthew 23:23, Yeshua said that faith in one of the weightier matters of the Law and obedience to God's instructions for how to walk in His ways is straightforwardly about having faith in Him to guide us in how to rightly live. In John 14:23-24, Yeshua said that if we love him, then we will obey his teachings, that if we do not love him, and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so obedience to the Father has always been about expressing our faith and our love for Him, and thereby growing in a relationship with Him, and has never been about trying to become justified by our own works.

    I believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, do you? To say that the way to act in accordance with God's attributes has changed is to say that God's attributes have changed, but God's attributes are eternal and do not change.

    I see no reason to think that the New Covenant involves something other than what Yeshua taught by word and by example or to think that teaching people to follow what he taught by word and by example is teaching people to reject him. Yeshua set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience God's Law, so there is no distinction between following him or following God's Law, and we are told to follow his example. Yeshua was not in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have, but rather he came only to do the Father's will and did not depart in the slightest from what the Father taught.
     
  19. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,024
    Messianic
    Single
    According to Psalms 119:29, David asked God to show His grace to him by teaching him to obey His Law. According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and being trained to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful, which is essentially what God's Law was given to instruct. According to Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience that faith requires. According to John 1:16-17, grace was added upon grace, so the grace of Christ was added upon the grace of the Law. According to Jude 1:4, the ungodly pervert God's grace into a license to sin, which is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). According to Strong's, "grace" is defined as "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" and when God's will is reflected in our lives it straightforwardly takes the form of obedience to God's commands. So God shows His grace to us by teaching us to walk in His ways in accordance with His Law.
     
  20. faroukfarouk

    faroukfarouk Fading curmudgeon

    +15,062
    Non-Denom
    Married
    But 'the obedience of faith', 'obedience to the faith' at the beginning and end of Romans is vastly different from supposedly now being under the law, like Israel in the Old Economy. The law has changed (Hebrews 7.12) and what the New Testament believer now has is better than the law (Hebrews 7.19).
     
Loading...