Some don't understand Romans 3:31. Here is a challenge.

[Frogster]

Bob..

Paul is fluid, look at this verse, 2 usages of law in one verse.

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?

the first law word is the code, the judaizers were putting the mosaic code on the galatians, the second use of law is about genesis, because he went into genesis to talk about the 2 cov's, all proving paul is fluid with law, and you're not deciphering which it which in 3:31. Law in 31 is the OT, he went into the OT, not the code, to answer the question right out of our verse here, 31. No?


Paul called Isaiah the law in 1 Cor 14, Jesus called a Psalms the law in the book of John, so you need to understand all of this, so you don't think that every time you see the law word, it means the code.

law can mean principle also like in Rom 3:27, and 7:21.

 

[BobRyan]

The entire Old Testament is called "The Law and the Prophets" or in some cases the "Law the Psalms and the prophets".

in Rom 3 Paul uses the term "The Law and the Prophets" to refer to all of scripture.

Matt 22 "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it."

Any part of scripture read could fall under that title.

Acts 13:15 And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Men and brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.”

when Paul speaks of the "LAW" that condemns the entire world as sinners in Rom 3:19-21 - and when Paul says this is what defines sin in that same text - then we know that the moral law is the one referenced in Rom 3:31. and in 3;19-21 - it is part of scripture "The Law and the Prophets"

The point is as said before -- irrefutable.

 

[Frogster]

Bob, look how the people called the Psalms the law also.

John 12:34 So the crowd answered him, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?”

Point being, it is importand to know what law means in each verse, you see the law word, and you seem to just think about the 10, but I have shown the variables, thanks, frog.

 

[Frogster]

The entire Old Testament is called "The Law and the Prophets" or in some cases the "Law the Psalms and the prophets".

in Rom 3 Paul uses the term "The Law and the Prophets" to refer to all of scripture.

Matt 22 "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it."

Any part of scripture read could fall under that title.

Acts 13:15 And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Men and brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.”

The point is as said before -- irrefutable.

I have no problem with that, but when 3:21 says apart and witnessed to in the same verse, obviously there are 2 uses of nomos in the one verse, like in gal 4:21.

I have proved the fluiditiy in the text, we need not see the stones just because we see the law word.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul says in Romans 3 that this is the Law that defines sin and condemns the entire world as sinners... that would not be "the Law about Passover". That does not condemn gentiles at all.


Rom 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
...

(So then the moral law of God is being affirmed by all of scripture "the Law and the Prophets")

29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

So then -- context, context, context.

 

[Frogster]

The entire Old Testament is called "The Law and the Prophets" or in some cases the "Law the Psalms and the prophets".

in Rom 3 Paul uses the term "The Law and the Prophets" to refer to all of scripture.

Matt 22 "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it."

Any part of scripture read could fall under that title.

Acts 13:15 And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Men and brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.”

when Paul speaks of the "LAW" that condemns the entire world as sinners in Rom 3:19-21 - and when Paul says this is what defines sin in that same text - then we know that the moral law is the one referenced in Rom 3:31. and in 3;19-21 - it is part of scripture "The Law and the Prophets"

The point is as said before -- irrefutable.

Sure the code is a part of scripture, but the code does not uphold faith on it's own merit, paul said so in gal 3:12, and in rom 4:15, that is my point, he was not upholding the code part of the OT, he was upholding genesis and the Psalms in Rom 4, and Hab 2;4 in Rom 1:17. Faith righteousness is in the OT, yes, I said that, but you can't show me faith righteousness in the code.

The faith word in 3:31 proves my point,that is the crux, the code does not uphod faith, if you took out the faith word and the question in 31, you would have a point, but even then, the law condemned men, the church is not under condemantion.

But as it stands now, LAW in 31 is not the code, that you promote, using 3:31 here alot in debates.

 

[Frogster]

Paul says in Romans 3 that this is the Law that defines sin and condemns the entire world as sinners... that would not be "the Law about Passover". That does not condemn gentiles at all.


Rom 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
...

(So then the moral law of God is being affirmed by all of scripture "the Law and the Prophets")

29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

So then -- context, context, context.

I have no problem that it is not about passover in Rom 3, but the stones have Sabbath, and you promote sabbath using 3:31, so from now on, since you say rightfully that 3 is not about a feast, but sin flesh issues, then we must also say 3 is not to promote Sabbath also.

PS, the law condemened all, those under it that being the Jews,, and the WHOLE WORLD, every mouth, eo that includes gentiles, so you are incorrect.


3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

Gal 3:22 says scripture calls all men sinners, that was gentile inclusive.

 

[Frogster]

Here is the distinction, that takes down your case. What is APART from what?


21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—

he is separating the code, from the rest of the OT in 3:21 above.

Just like Romans 7 is about the code, and not the rest of the OT, one must understand what is being said, and how to apply nomos correctly.

 

[bugkiller]

Bob, look how the people called the Psalms the law also.

John 12:34 So the crowd answered him, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?”

Point being, it is importand to know what law means in each verse, you see the law word, and you seem to just think about the 10, but I have shown the variables, thanks, frog.

You've hit on a major problem with their understanding. Definitions are the biggest problem I run into with them. They seem to be locked. They won't even consider the list of definitions for any give word. The setting, use or context give the specific meaning. This problem runs down to even pronouns. This is why I ask things like how does new mean the same even when qualified with not according to. Blows me away.

bugkiller

 

[Soyeong]

We know that the law is not of faith, Gal 3:12, then right in Rom 4:14, he says the Mosaic law voids the promise and faith.

So my question is, how does this justifying faith of Jew and Greek, that is what the faith word of 31 is about, establish the Mosaic law that voids the promise, and is not of faith?

How can that which voids, also establish?

They key to understanding Galatians is understanding what Paul meant by the phrase "works of the law". For a while it was a mystery because the phrase wasn't used anywhere else in rabbinic literature. However, with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Qumran text 4QMMT was able to shine some light on this:

Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen [that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel. (p. 364, Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation)

In other words, the author was saying to the recipient that they would be saved by keeping the law in the way that they said they should keep it. The Galatians had already been saved by faith, but they had begun listening to people who were teaching them that they weren't saved unless they kept the laws of Moses, including the oral law. In context of Galatians 3:12, starting with verse 10, Paul was arguing against being saved by works, which is indeed without faith.

In Romans 4:14, Paul didn't say that the Mosaic law voids the promise and faith, but rather that if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

So the law doesn't justify you and it doesn't make you a heir to the promise, but that doesn't mean that there is no advantage to being obedient to God. Without God, we are slaves to our sin nature and can't be obedient to Him through our own effort. It is only through our faith in God that He works through us to conform us to the character of Christ in obedience to God. Having faith is acting in a way that demonstrates that we trust God, so obedience to Him is a natural outflowing of faith, and in this way, our faith upholds the law. Paul added Romans 3:31 to make sure that no one misunderstood the previous verses and mistakenly thought that that because we are justified by faith apart from the law, therefore we shouldn't bother keeping it.

In 4:3, asks, “what do the scriptures say”. Guess what, he did not quote the 10 commandments in Rom 4 after asking what the text says.

Paul's point was that Abraham was justified by faith, so being justified by faith is common throughout both the Old and New Testaments. The law was never given so that we could be justified by keeping it in the first place, so Paul is upholding the law when he defended it against those who were teaching that they had to keep it in order to be justified.

 

[Soyeong]

Sure, the OT is scripture, but again, like 3:31, what was in the scriptures that Paul wanted? It was faith righteousness, not the law for the churches. So the righteousness, in the writings was about faith unto salvation, Paul was not talking about the law there, as we see from the surrounding text.

2 Tim 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom[a] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Quite wrong, "training in righteousness" is obedience to the law. At the beginning of our Christian walk, we are declared righteous by faith, which means we are set free from our sin nature to become slaves to obedience. Sanctification is the process of becoming more like Christ in his obedience to God as we train ourselves in obedience to the law.

In other words, there is a difference between being declared righteous and living righteously (or training in righteousness). We live righteously or rightly by living in obedience to God, but even if we somehow manage to only sin or disobey God three times per day, though either omission or commission, and lived an average life spawn, we might have 70,000 sins on our record. We might think three sins a day is not too shabby, but the wages of sin, even one, is death, so we can't be justified through living righteously through our own efforts, we must be justified by faith. God paid the penalty for our disobedience to His commands, but should be feel free to sin or to live unrighteously because we are justified by faith apart from works? By no means! God justified us so that we would be free from our old sin nature and free to live righteously in obedience to His commands.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul says in Romans 3 that this is the Law that defines sin and condemns the entire world as sinners... that would not be "the Law about Passover". That does not condemn gentiles at all.


Rom 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
...

(So then the moral law of God is being affirmed by all of scripture "the Law and the Prophets")

29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

So then -- context, context, context.

I have no problem that it is not about passover in Rom 3, but the stones have Sabbath,

Indeed the moral law has the Sabbath and the moral law is that which condemns the entire world - and this is the subject of Romans 3 as Paul points out ... which means it is also the Law that "We ESTABLISH" in Rom 3:31.

and you promote sabbath using 3:31, so from now on, since you say rightfully that 3 is not about a feast, but sin flesh issues, then we must also say 3 is not to promote Sabbath also.

You just shot your own argument in the foot by allowing Rom 3:31 to include all the ten commandments .. you realize that right??

Were we "not supposed to notice"??

The Passover did not apply to gentiles .. there is no "Passover was made for mankind" there is no "from passover to passover shall all MANKIND come before me to worship" ... there is no Passover for Adam in Gen 2:1-3.

But all of that is applied to Sabbath in full starting in Gen 2:1-3 as God reminds us in Ex 20:11.

Thus while Passover is not condemning all mankind in Rom 3:19-21 the FULL Ten Commandments are - as even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship admits - to this very day.

PS, the law condemened all, those under it that being the Jews,, and the WHOLE WORLD, every mouth,

True and this is specifically true of God's "unit of TEN" Commandments kept inside the ark as their own unit of TEN and held in distinction.

that includes gentiles, so you are incorrect.

Agreed.

I have no problem that it is not about passover in Rom 3, but the stones have Sabbath, and you promote sabbath using 3:31, so from now on, since you say rightfully that 3 is not about a feast, but sin flesh issues, then we must also say 3 is not to promote Sabbath also.

PS, the law condemened all, those under it that being the Jews,, and the WHOLE WORLD, every mouth, eo that includes gentiles, so you are incorrect.


3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

Gal 3:22 says scripture calls all men sinners, that was gentile inclusive.

Agreed that both Gal 3 and Rom 3 use the still-binding moral law of God to condemn all mankind as sinners. A Bible point that even the majority of pro-sunday scholars will admit to.

Which is why Paul's statement in Rom 3:31 is so devastating to those at war with God's TEN Commandments.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Paul says in Romans 3 that this is the Law that defines sin and condemns the entire world as sinners... that would not be "the Law about Passover". That does not condemn gentiles at all.


Rom 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
...

(So then the moral law of God is being affirmed by all of scripture "the Law and the Prophets")

29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

So then -- context, context, context.

The entire Old Testament is called "The Law and the Prophets" or in some cases the "Law the Psalms and the prophets".

in Rom 3 Paul uses the term "The Law and the Prophets" to refer to all of scripture.

Matt 22 "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it."

Any part of scripture read could fall under that title.

Acts 13:15 And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Men and brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.”

when Paul speaks of the "LAW" that condemns the entire world as sinners in Rom 3:19-21 - and when Paul says this is what defines sin in that same text - then we know that the moral law is the one referenced in Rom 3:31. and in 3;19-21 - it is part of scripture "The Law and the Prophets"

The point is as said before -- irrefutable.

The points are

1. The phrase "Law and the Prophets" is always used to mean "scripture" as in what we today call OT "scripture.

2. Rom 3 makes the case that all of OT scripture is a witness to the LAW - the LAW that condemns all mankind under sin and in need of salvation. Obviously that is not the function of Pslams for example.

3. Paul says our faith "ESTABLISHES the LAW" Rom 3:31 AND he says the LAW is "written on the heart and on the mind" Heb 8 under the NEW Covenant.

Bob, look how the people called the Psalms the law also.

John 12:34 So the crowd answered him, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?”

Point being, it is importand to know what law means in each verse, you see the law word, and you seem to just think about the 10, but I have shown the variables, thanks, frog.

The context in Romans 3 is not Psalms but rather the LAW that condemns all mankind under sin.

Which I think even you will admit is not simply the Psalms - but the TEN Commandments written on stone the "LAW of death" as Paul calls it in 2Cor 3.

2 Cor 3
7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away

It is THAT Law which condemns the entire world as lost sinners according to Paul. The LAW external on tablets of stone only - shows us to be sinners. But under the NEW Covenant that Law is written on the tablets of the human heart - written on "heart and mind" according to Heb 8.

context, context context.

 

[Frogster]

You've hit on a major problem with their understanding. Definitions are the biggest problem I run into with them. They seem to be locked. They won't even consider the list of definitions for any give word. The setting, use or context give the specific meaning. This problem runs down to even pronouns. This is why I ask things like how does new mean the same even when qualified with not according to. Blows me away.

bugkiller

Understood, and I even post alot of text, that prove it, and I give a clear point!

 

[Frogster]

They key to understanding Galatians is understanding what Paul meant by the phrase "works of the law". For a while it was a mystery because the phrase wasn't used anywhere else in rabbinic literature. However, with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Qumran text 4QMMT was able to shine some light on this:

Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen [that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel. (p. 364, Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation)

In other words, the author was saying to the recipient that they would be saved by keeping the law in the way that they said they should keep it. The Galatians had already been saved by faith, but they had begun listening to people who were teaching them that they weren't saved unless they kept the laws of Moses, including the oral law. In context of Galatians 3:12, starting with verse 10, Paul was arguing against being saved by works, which is indeed without faith.

In Romans 4:14, Paul didn't say that the Mosaic law voids the promise and faith, but rather that if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

So the law doesn't justify you and it doesn't make you a heir to the promise, but that doesn't mean that there is no advantage to being obedient to God. Without God, we are slaves to our sin nature and can't be obedient to Him through our own effort. It is only through our faith in God that He works through us to conform us to the character of Christ in obedience to God. Having faith is acting in a way that demonstrates that we trust God, so obedience to Him is a natural outflowing of faith, and in this way, our faith upholds the law. Paul added Romans 3:31 to make sure that no one misunderstood the previous verses and mistakenly thought that that because we are justified by faith apart from the law, therefore we shouldn't bother keeping it.



Paul's point was that Abraham was justified by faith, so being justified by faith is common throughout both the Old and New Testaments. The law was never given so that we could be justified by keeping it in the first place, so Paul is upholding the law when he defended it against those who were teaching that they had to keep it in order to be justified.

But the fact remains, the law is not of faith, and law voids the promise, so when people promote law on the church then and now, what happens?

Plus Romans 4 would pertain to their future, like in Galatia, even the Jews had to now walk, that is a verb about the future, in the footsteps of Abraham in Rom 4:12. Paul always uses Abe to ward of law, circumcision, Judaism, nationalism, pride, etc.


What you don't seem to understand about Galatians is this.

They were saved, but they were now going to add the law, they had to now live by faith, or now live by law, they were at a crossroads, getting ready to add law, perfect through the flesh Gal 3:3. But Paul said no. Gal 3:15, no one ADDS..


Look at these verses, it was about how they were going to live in their future sanctification. LIVE by faith, or law.


11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

Just like Gal 5:3, if they were altered, they would now for their future live all the time by law, not just for one day.

Bottom line, if you not going to see past justification in Galatians, and see the sanctification, you will miss the point.


red above, you keep saying oral law from Paul, but you have not shown proof. There is nothing in Galatians to indicate oral law, or in Acts 15.

In fact, why would Paul go all the way to Jerusalem, to fight oral law?

Look at this verse below, it was about those who came to push law, Paul called it bondage, and Paul uses the bondage word several times in Galatians, about the law. So those of Acts 15:1, and 15:5 were pushing law bondage, it says Moses in 15. So you argue from absence. Gal 2:4 is about Acts 15.


Gal 2:4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—

 

[Frogster]

Quite wrong, "training in righteousness" is obedience to the law. At the beginning of our Christian walk, we are declared righteous by faith, which means we are set free from our sin nature to become slaves to obedience. Sanctification is the process of becoming more like Christ in his obedience to God as we train ourselves in obedience to the law.

In other words, there is a difference between being declared righteous and living righteously (or training in righteousness). We live righteously or rightly by living in obedience to God, but even if we somehow manage to only sin or disobey God three times per day, though either omission or commission, and lived an average life spawn, we might have 70,000 sins on our record. We might think three sins a day is not too shabby, but the wages of sin, even one, is death, so we can't be justified through living righteously through our own efforts, we must be justified by faith. God paid the penalty for our disobedience to His commands, but should be feel free to sin or to live unrighteously because we are justified by faith apart from works? By no means! God justified us so that we would be free from our old sin nature and free to live righteously in obedience to His commands.

No it isn't, the law was never God's righteousness,

Rom 10:3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes


Faith was, you are going against Paul's theology big time. he talks about faith in Christ in those verses to Timothy, not not law.

 

[Frogster]

[/COLOR][/B][/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]



Indeed the moral law has the Sabbath and the moral law is that which condemns the entire world - and this is the subject of Romans 3 as Paul points out ... which means it is also the Law that "We ESTABLISH" in Rom 3:31.



You just shot your own argument in the foot by allowing Rom 3:31 to include all the ten commandments .. you realize that right??

Were we "not supposed to notice"??

The Passover did not apply to gentiles .. there is no "Passover was made for mankind" there is no "from passover to passover shall all MANKIND come before me to worship" ... there is no Passover for Adam in Gen 2:1-3.

But all of that is applied to Sabbath in full starting in Gen 2:1-3 as God reminds us in Ex 20:11.

Thus while Passover is not condemning all mankind in Rom 3:19-21 the FULL Ten Commandments are - as even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship admits - to this very day.



True and this is specifically true of God's "unit of TEN" Commandments kept inside the ark as their own unit of TEN and held in distinction.



Agreed.




Agreed that both Gal 3 and Rom 3 use the still-binding moral law of God to condemn all mankind as sinners. A Bible point that even the majority of pro-sunday scholars will admit to.

Which is why Paul's statement in Rom 3:31 is so devastating to those at war with God's TEN Commandments.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

in Christ,

Bob

green above, what happened was, with all due respect, no offense, but you did a flip flop, because i showed you how you said 3 was about sin and flesh, not passover, so that would also mean Sabbath is not a sin flesh issue either, so you can't use 3:31 to promote Sabbath, so now you are doing damage control!

If it were not about Passover, then it is not about Sabbath in Rom 3.!


I am not the one who shot himself in the foot, i never said 3:31 is about the 10. Who did?

Now, what is apart from what in this verse that uses the law word 2 times? Please advise.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—


PS, you still never showed how that which voids faith, that being the law, which is not of faith Gal 3:12, can establish the law. You do not want to address the faith word in 3:31, because it ruins your argument.

How does something that voids, also establish?

 

[Frogster]

[/COLOR][/B][/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]



Indeed the moral law has the Sabbath and the moral law is that which condemns the entire world - and this is the subject of Romans 3 as Paul points out ... which means it is also the Law that "We ESTABLISH" in Rom 3:31.



You just shot your own argument in the foot by allowing Rom 3:31 to include all the ten commandments .. you realize that right??

Were we "not supposed to notice"??

The Passover did not apply to gentiles .. there is no "Passover was made for mankind" there is no "from passover to passover shall all MANKIND come before me to worship" ... there is no Passover for Adam in Gen 2:1-3.

But all of that is applied to Sabbath in full starting in Gen 2:1-3 as God reminds us in Ex 20:11.

Thus while Passover is not condemning all mankind in Rom 3:19-21 the FULL Ten Commandments are - as even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship admits - to this very day.



True and this is specifically true of God's "unit of TEN" Commandments kept inside the ark as their own unit of TEN and held in distinction.



Agreed.




Agreed that both Gal 3 and Rom 3 use the still-binding moral law of God to condemn all mankind as sinners. A Bible point that even the majority of pro-sunday scholars will admit to.

Which is why Paul's statement in Rom 3:31 is so devastating to those at war with God's TEN Commandments.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

in Christ,

Bob

You keep putting 3:31 in big bold red fonts. But you can't answer how faith, which is not of the law can establish that which it is not of.

Look at the juxtaposition here, the law is not of faith, so faith does not establish the ministry of death and condemnation, 2 Cor 3:7, 3:9.

Faith brings life, the stones brought death, how can life support death? How does faith, uphold the stones in verse 31? It doesn't, but it does establish other parts of the OT, as per 3:31. You need to finally see, that "law" in 3;31, was not about the stones. Paul was establishing Genesis, and the Psalms in Rom 4 to answer the question in 3:31, not the stones. Did he quote the stones? No!


Look at the juxtaposition here between faith, and law..


Gal 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.”

 

[BobRyan]

So then in Romans 3:31 we have the Law of God "established" by the saints.

The points are

1. The phrase "Law and the Prophets" is always used to mean "scripture" as in what we today call OT "scripture.

2. Rom 3 makes the case that all of OT scripture is a witness to the LAW - the LAW that condemns all mankind under sin and in need of salvation. Obviously that is not the function of Pslams for example. And 2Cor 3 states clearly it is the LAW on stone tablets that does that.

3. Paul the points to that same law and says our faith "ESTABLISHES the LAW" Rom 3:31 AND he says the LAW is "written on the heart and on the mind" Heb 8 under the NEW Covenant.


The context in Romans 3 is not Psalms but rather the LAW that condemns all mankind under sin.

Which I think even you will admit is not simply the Psalms - but the TEN Commandments written on stone the "LAW of death" as Paul calls it in 2Cor 3.

2 Cor 3
7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away

It is THAT Law which condemns the entire world as lost sinners according to Paul. The LAW external on tablets of stone only - shows us to be sinners. But under the NEW Covenant that Law is written on the tablets of the human heart - written on "heart and mind" according to Heb 8.

context, context context.

You keep putting 3:31 in big bold red fonts.

Indeed the text that directly contradicts the statement about God's Law being abolished. "Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

I am not "proposing" that this text exist. Your argument is "with the text".

But you can't answer how faith, which is not of the law can establish that which it is not of.

On the contrary I point repeatedly to the Heb 8 fact that it is ONLY those under the NEW COVENANT that have the "LAW written on their hearts and on their minds"

AND in Romans 8:5-8 it is the only the LOST that "do not" and that "CAN NOT" submit to the Law of God.

And of course in Mark 7:6-13 Christ gets directly to the point of true worship to God as it is connected to keeping the Commandments of God.

(As we have seen dozens of times).

Look at the juxtaposition here, the law is not of faith, so faith does not establish the ministry of death and condemnation, 2 Cor 3:7, 3:9.

There are many ways to imagine that the texts above do not exist or should not exist by taking "extreme inference" to one part of Romans 3 as you point out above.

Certainly it is true that the lost who choose faith in Christ are saved not by the works of the Law but by faith. For by the works of the Law can no lost person be justified i.e. saved. But that does not mean that the NEW Covenant condition does not "exist" , it does not mean we need to be at war with the Rom 3:31 point that Paul brings out in BALANCE to what has been said about the lost becoming justified -- and that by faith.

The war you would have between those two parts of Romans 3 does not exist in the text. It can only happen using some form of extreme inference as your statement illustrates.

Faith brings life, the stones brought death, how can life support death? How does faith, uphold the stones in verse 31?

Going even farther in convoluted inference against Rom 3:31 does not solve your problem because I am not "proposing" that Rom 3:31 "exist" -- it already does.

It doesn't, but it does establish other parts of the OT,

The term LAW in Romans 3 is already well defined in context.

1. The phrase "Law and the Prophets" is always used to mean "scripture" as in what we today call OT "scripture.

2. Rom 3 makes the case that all of OT scripture is a witness to the LAW - the LAW that condemns all mankind under sin and in need of salvation. Obviously that is not the function of Pslams for example. And 2Cor 3 states clearly it is the LAW on stone tablets that does that.

3. Paul the points to that same law of Romans 3 and says our faith "ESTABLISHES the LAW" Rom 3:31 AND he says the LAW is "written on the heart and on the mind" Heb 8 under the NEW Covenant.

as per 3:31. You need to finally see, that "law" in 3;31, was not about the stones.

2Cor 3 says it is about them.

Romans 3:19-22 points to only one law that can condemn the entire world under sin.

It is that same law known to Jeremiah - and in Jer 31:31-33 written on the heart and mind - via the NEW Covenant -- as Paul reminds us in Hebrews 8.

Paul was establishing Genesis, and the Psalms in Rom 4 to answer the question in 3:31, not the stones. Did he quote the stones? No!

on the contrary -- the Psalms do not condemn all the world under sin - and this is clear from 2Cor 3. So they are not the "LAW" of Rom 3:19-31.

irrefutable.

And it is the Law on stone that is quoted in Romans 7 as defining sin, in Romans 3:19-21 .. it defines sin.

irrefutable.

Look at the juxtaposition here between faith, and law..

Gal 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.”

In Gal 3 the issue is the same as in Romans 3 -- the moral law that defines sin and the task being right with God either by sinless obedience or justified by faith - and both chapters state that the moral law of God places all mankind under sin - it is still binding to this very day doing that very thing.

Thus all mankind need salvation.

Irrefutable.

It is that moral law that is "ESTABLISHED" under the New Covenant with the "LAW written on the heart and mind" it is that moral law that the lost "DO NOT" submit to "neither indeed CAN they" Rom 8:5-8.


Beyond question.

You keep putting 3:31 in big bold red fonts.
But you can't answer how faith, which is not of the law can establish that which it is not of.

Look at the juxtaposition here, the law is not of faith, so faith does not establish the ministry of death and condemnation, 2 Cor 3:7, 3:9.

Faith brings life, the stones brought death, how can life support death? How does faith, uphold the stones in verse 31? It doesn't, but it does establish other parts of the OT, as per 3:31. You need to finally see, that "law" in 3;31, was not about the stones. Paul was establishing Genesis, and the Psalms in Rom 4 to answer the question in 3:31, not the stones. Did he quote the stones? No!


Look at the juxtaposition here between faith, and law..


Gal 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.”

Establishing the obvious fact that the Romans 3 context for "LAW" is only the moral law - the TEN Commandments - the LAW that condemns all the world as under sin. Is the easy part.

Accepting the concluding statement in Romans 3:31 that fits so well with Rom 8:5-8 and Heb 8 (New Covenant) is where some will struggle with the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Frogster]

So then in Romans 3:31 we have the Law of God "established" by the saints.






Indeed the text that directly contradicts the statement about God's Law being abolished. "Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

I am not "proposing" that this text exist. Your argument is "with the text".



On the contrary I point repeatedly to the Heb 8 fact that it is ONLY those under the NEW COVENANT that have the "LAW written on their hearts and on their minds"

AND in Romans 8:5-8 it is the only the LOST that "do not" and that "CAN NOT" submit to the Law of God.

And of course in Mark 7:6-13 Christ gets directly to the point of true worship to God as it is connected to keeping the Commandments of God.

(As we have seen dozens of times).



There are many ways to imagine that the texts above do not exist or should not exist by taking "extreme inference" to one part of Romans 3 as you point out above.

Certainly it is true that the lost who choose faith in Christ are saved not by the works of the Law but by faith. For by the works of the Law can no lost person be justified i.e. saved. But that does not mean that the NEW Covenant condition does not "exist" , it does not mean we need to be at war with the Rom 3:31 point that Paul brings out in BALANCE to what has been said about the lost becoming justified -- and that by faith.

The war you would have between those two parts of Romans 3 does not exist in the text. It can only happen using some form of extreme inference as your statement illustrates.



Going even farther in convoluted inference against Rom 3:31 does not solve your problem because I am not "proposing" that Rom 3:31 "exist" -- it already does.



The term LAW in Romans 3 is already well defined in context.

1. The phrase "Law and the Prophets" is always used to mean "scripture" as in what we today call OT "scripture.

2. Rom 3 makes the case that all of OT scripture is a witness to the LAW - the LAW that condemns all mankind under sin and in need of salvation. Obviously that is not the function of Pslams for example. And 2Cor 3 states clearly it is the LAW on stone tablets that does that.

3. Paul the points to that same law of Romans 3 and says our faith "ESTABLISHES the LAW" Rom 3:31 AND he says the LAW is "written on the heart and on the mind" Heb 8 under the NEW Covenant.





2Cor 3 says it is about them.

Romans 3:19-22 points to only one law that can condemn the entire world under sin.

It is that same law known to Jeremiah - and in Jer 31:31-33 written on the heart and mind - via the NEW Covenant -- as Paul reminds us in Hebrews 8.



on the contrary -- the Psalms do not condemn all the world under sin - and this is clear from 2Cor 3. So they are not the "LAW" of Rom 3:19-31.

irrefutable.

And it is the Law on stone that is quoted in Romans 7 as defining sin, in Romans 3:19-21 .. it defines sin.

irrefutable.




In Gal 3 the issue is the same as in Romans 3 -- the moral law that defines sin and the task being right with God either by sinless obedience or justified by faith - and both chapters state that the moral law of God places all mankind under sin - it is still binding to this very day doing that very thing.

Thus all mankind need salvation.

Irrefutable.

It is that moral law that is "ESTABLISHED" under the New Covenant with the "LAW written on the heart and mind" it is that moral law that the lost "DO NOT" submit to "neither indeed CAN they" Rom 8:5-8.


Beyond question.



Establishing the obvious fact that the Romans 3 context for "LAW" is only the moral law - the TEN Commandments - the LAW that condemns all the world as under sin. Is the easy part.

Accepting the concluding statement in Romans 3:31 that fits so well with Rom 8:5-8 and Heb 8 (New Covenant) is where some will struggle with the text.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, I can fill a page also, and say all kinds of stuff too. It looks okay, but when read, there is no red meat there at all. Why?

Because there are 3 facts you won't respond to, in a clear, short and direct manner.

#1. How can faith establish the law, when the law voids faith? Gal 3:13, Rom 4:14. You keep ignoring the fact that the faith word is in the question of 3:31.


#2. You can no longer use 3:31 to promote the Sabbath, because you said 31 was about sin and flesh, and not about Passover. So that means it was also not about Sabbath!

#3. What law is apart from what? Rom 3:21 shows my point, faith was apart from the law, but it was in the prophets. So please, in a clear direct answer, please tell me what laws are APART, from each other? How can something be apart, yet witnessed to by the same thing?

3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—



Read 3:21 like this. But now God's righteousness is revealed, apart from the Code, but it was in the OT, in the Psalms, Genesis, Hab 2;4 etc, all along.


I await a clear, short, direct, cohesive answer, thanks, frog.