• 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!

Featured The Law loses again..God must be angry!

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Blood Bought 1953, Dec 4, 2017.

Tags:
  1. Grip Docility

    Grip Docility Active Member

    250
    +139
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    This is mocking Grace as if Christ were a promoter of sin.

    Again... Grace isn’t a license to sin, but it is because we sin!

    Please say you have a Monty Python angle!
     
  2. Grip Docility

    Grip Docility Active Member

    250
    +139
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Their analogy mocks grace! Not only does it not apply, but it is of that which calls grace nothing more than a license to sin, or insufficient for sinners.

    Their analogy attempts to make grace of no use and bring the law back to light.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  3. Kenny'sID

    Kenny'sID Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,679
    Christian
    Single
    MATTHEW.23: =
    23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

    Someone here posted that scripture, and I just wanted to point out, for the faith only crowd, this is Christ himself telling us it's all important and none of it should be left undone.
     
  4. Grip Docility

    Grip Docility Active Member

    250
    +139
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Scribes and Teachers of the Law. How can you rebuild what He destroyed? Galatians 2

    Read every word of Galatians and tell me what “Get rid of the slave woman and her child”, means.

    I’m waiting and listening intently...
     
  5. Kenny'sID

    Kenny'sID Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,679
    Christian
    Single
    It applies perfectly if you get what was intended.

    We aren't talking speed limits here, we are talking commandments and other rules set forth by God, the big ones, and not doing those things, do not cause problems as said traffic jam indicates, not doing them prevents problems.

    Point being your analogy did not apply
     
  6. Kenny'sID

    Kenny'sID Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,679
    Christian
    Single
    You have a point, you need to make it instead of waiting...intently. :)
     
  7. Almost there

    Almost there Well-Known Member

    +762
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Well, you got me. You are correct.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  8. Kenny'sID

    Kenny'sID Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,679
    Christian
    Single
    Relax.
     
  9. Kenny'sID

    Kenny'sID Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,679
    Christian
    Single
    That happens so rarely here, I don't know how to react, lol....speechless.
     
  10. Jason0047

    Jason0047 Agent for Christ Supporter

    +2,379
    Non-Denom
    Married
    If you don't need a set of rules, then why is the New Testament filled with tons of Commands?
    By all rights if you were correct in what you are saying, there would be no commands in the New Testamment. But try doing a study on the commands in the New Testament and you will see otherwise.

    Even ... "love" is founded upon the two greatest commandments.
    To believe in Jesus is a commandment (1 John 3:23).
    In other words, name me one thing that the Spirit would like for you to do as a part of God's will and is loving that is not some kind of Command.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  11. Grip Docility

    Grip Docility Active Member

    250
    +139
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Monty Python angel?
     
  12. Grip Docility

    Grip Docility Active Member

    250
    +139
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Perhaps we both know this point and Monty Python remains funny? :)

    Galatians 4:21-31
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  13. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member

    +2,578
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Unbelievable.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  14. Jason0047

    Jason0047 Agent for Christ Supporter

    +2,379
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Yeah, that is simply not true.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  15. discipler7

    discipler7 Active Member

    334
    +85
    Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
    Christian
    Single
    Not true.

    .
    From ... Strong's Greek: 3423. μνηστεύω (mnésteuó) -- to espouse, betroth

    3423. mnésteuó

    Strong's Concordance
    mnésteuó: to espouse, betroth
    Original Word: μνηστεύω
    Part of Speech: Verb
    Transliteration: mnésteuó
    Phonetic Spelling: (mnace-tyoo'-o)
    Short Definition: I ask in marriage
    Definition: I ask in marriage; pass: I am betrothed.
    HELPS Word-studies
    3423 mnēsteúō – originally, "to woo and win; espouse, then to promise in marriage, betroth" (Abbott-Smith); to espouse; betroth.

    NAS Exhaustive Concordance
    Word Origin
    from mnaomai (in the sense of to court a bride)
    Definition
    to espouse, betroth
    NASB Translation
    betrothed (1), engaged (2).

    STRONGS NT 3423: μνηστεύω

    μνηστεύω: passive, perfect participle μεμνηστευμενος (R G) and ἐμνηστευμενος (L T Tr WH) (cf. Winers Grammar, § 12, 10; Veitch, under the word; Tdf. Proleg., p. 121); 1 aorist participle μνηστευθεις; (μνηστός betrothed, espoused); from Homer down; the Sept. for אֵרֵשׂ; τινα (γυναῖκα), to woo her and ask her in marriage; passive to be promised in marriage, be betrothed: τίνι, Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:27; Luke 2:5
     
  16. Doug Melven

    Doug Melven Well-Known Member

    873
    +481
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    The New Covenant is a better way and it is a superior guide. And we should study the Word of God.
    Through studying and praying we learn to know His Voice.
    Somebody earlier said there were 1050 commands in the New Testament.
    I am fairly good at memorizing Scripture, (there are people who have referred to me as "The walking Bible") and I don't think I will ever be able to learn 1050 commands.
    But I do know His voice and I obey when I hear it.
    But to focus on commands in the Word is to serve in the oldness of the letter, not in newness of the Spirit.
     
  17. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +2,578
    Messianic
    Single
    The word use can also be translated as "transition", so I agree that it can be believed in what it says plainly at face value, and I've made arguments for why it is appropriate to translate it that way and inappropriate to translate to have the meaning that you suggest. God's righteous standard is eternal (Psalms 119:142) so therefore also are all of God's righteous laws (Psalms 119:160), so it is not speaking about them being changed.

    Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, he proceeded it by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what the people of his day had heard being taught about Scripture, he proceeded it by saying "you have heard that it was said", so the emphasis is on the form of communication. So Jesus was not speaking against what was written, but against what they had heard being taught about it. For example:

    Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

    While the Law certainly instructs us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not instruct us to hate our enemy, so Jesus was simply correcting what was wrongly being taught about the Law, not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by adding his own commands.

    Peter was never to eat unclean animals and if he had tried to say that it was now acceptable, then then people would have been quicker to reject him as a false prophet than to accept that it was now acceptable to eat unclean animals, as should we, but he gave the interpretation of his vision three times and not once did he even hint at unclean animals now being acceptable to eat. It says in Peter's vision that all kinds of animals were let down, so he could have easily obeyed the command to kill at eat by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals, and the point that God was making to him was about why he refused to do that. The issue was that there was a man-made ritual purity law that said that things that come into contact with things are unclean become common (Mark 7:3-4), so because all of the animals were bundled together, all of the clean animals there had become common. So by stating that he had never eat anything that was common or unclean, he was saying that he had never broken this ritual purity law or kashrut, and he correctly refused to eat an unclean animals, but by refusing to eat one of the clean animals, he was disobeying God in order to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke him for referring to clean animals as unclean, but for referring to clean animals as common, so his vision was in regard to the mislabeling of clean animals, which he interpreted as being in regard to the mislabeling of Gentiles, and had absolutely nothing to do with God's eternal laws being done away with.

    In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow, which involved making offerings (Numbers 6) and in Acts 21:20-24, he was on his way to pay for the offerings of others who had taken a similar vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. Furthermore, the Bible prophecies a time when a third temple will be built and when offerings will resume (Ezekiel 44-46).

    Nowhere does God's Law require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, and if God did not require it, then it is therefore a man-made requirement. Though God did require all Jews to become circumcised, not even they were required to do so in order to become saved. By becoming circumcised, Gentiles were becoming Jewish proselytes and agreeing to live as Jews according all of their oral laws, and doing so in order to become saved. If they were trying to become saved by their obedience to man-made laws rather than by faith in God, then Christ would profit them nothing. Paul said that circumcision has no value, but that what matters is keeping God's commands (1 Corinthians 7:19) and that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2), so the key is that the value of circumcision is entirely dependant on whether we keep the Law, and the way to tell that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to it (Romans 2:25-26).

    I agree that we are not under the law, but Paul specified in Romans 6:14 that the law that we are not under is one where sin had dominion over us, which does not fit at all with God's holy, righteous, and good law, which Paul said was not sin, but revealed what sin is (Roman 7:7, Romans 7:12), but rather it fits perfect with his description of the law of sin. It wouldn't make sense to say interpret Romans 6:14 as referring to us not being under God's Law and then say in the next verse that being under grace doesn't mean that we are permitted to do what God's Law reveals to be sin. Rather, in Psalms 119:29, David asked God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His Law, so if we are under grace, then we are under God's Law. Furthermore, all of the surrounding context of Romans 6:12-19 supports obedience to God's Law, where we are not to present ourselves as instruments of sin, but as instruments of righteousness, that we are to be slaves of God, not slaves of sin, and that we have been set free from sin in order to become slaves of righteousness, and that we are no longer to present ourselves as slaves of impurity and Lawlessness, leading to more Lawlessness, but as slaves of righteousness leading to sanctification.

    Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's commands are inherently moral commands. Jesus was sinless, so he at least taught his followers how to walk in obedience to the law by example, which would have been included in everything that he had taught them as part of the Great Commission, and as his followers, we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6).

    The Greek word "ekklesia" is translated as "church" or "assembly" and is used many times in the Septuagint to refer to the assembly of Israel in the wilderness, so Israel, the people of God, and the Church are all synonymous. According to Romans 9:6-8, Israel is made up of those who have faith in the promise, in Ephesians 2:19, Gentiles have become fellow citizens of Israel through faith in Messiah, and the 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are now included among God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession. God has given instructions to His followers to teach us how to walk in His ways and as his followers, we should seek to follow those instructions and to learn how to walk in His ways. Israel was intended to be a light to the other nations to teach them about God and how to walk in His ways (Isaiah 2:2-3). In 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to act in accordance with His holiness, so ceremonial laws are not particular to Jews, but are particular to God. They are his ways, not the ways of the Jews. It should be relatively straightforward that having a holy conduct involves keeping God's holy days.
     
  18. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +2,578
    Messianic
    Single
    There are a number of instances where some of God's laws appear to contradict each other. For example, if someone wanted to follow the command to circumcise their baby boy on the 8th day and it happened to fall on the Sabbath, then it was not the case that they were forced to sin by breaking one of the two commands no matter what they chose to do, but that one of the commands was never intended to prevent the other from being obeyed, and in this case the Sabbath was never intended to prevent circumcision on the 8th day. So there were some who thought that command not to work on the Sabbath meant that we should not do the work of healing someone, whereas Jesus said that it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath, so the command not to work on the Sabbath was never intended to prevent someone from being healed. In general, no command was intended to be used as an excuse to prevent us from obeying the commands to love God and our neighbor.
     
  19. discipler7

    discipler7 Active Member

    334
    +85
    Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
    Christian
    Single
    Post #45
    .
    .
    But earlier, you were promoting sin, ie by stating that "We best not be attempting to keep any law!"
    ... Did you change your mind.?
     
  20. Blood Bought 1953

    Blood Bought 1953 Ned Flander’s Buddy

    +729
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    H

    Typically excellent post from Doug.....I would only add that Paul and Jesus said that all the laws come Down to this...love God and love your neighbor...concentrate on these two and everything else will take care of itself
    On a unrelated note.....Buckeyes rule.....Wolverines drool..haha.....that was for my brother ,Doug. Lol
     
Loading...