The Law of Moses and its commandments : Forever unfit for purpose

[Zao is life]

The law of Moses was a curse? So God was an evil father who gave a stone to his children when they needed bread? No, Israel is God's "treasured possession" and He gave them a good gift that re-taught them how to be human (reflect the divine image). The law contains a curse (condemnation) for any who attempt to use it for justification. But to those who relate to it via the New Covenant (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Peter, Paul, you, me) it is "holy, righteous, and good" to quote Paul, or a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths. The curse (the condemnation) not the law, has been nailed to the cross.

Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

The law was "until":

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

It is not possible that the Law of Moses could be upheld forever, and now it has been abolished in the flesh of Christ.

 

[Zao is life]

I do not see how even one of these contrasts requires us to believe that we are to follow the Law of Moses. The closest is this contrast that you draw:

The mind set on the flesh does not submit to God's Law vs
The mind set on the Spirit does submit to God's Law.

If you can show me a specific Biblical text that teaches that God gave us the Spirit in order that we might "submit" or follow the Law of Moses, you will have provided at least some support for your claim. So, please, do try to provide such a text - I am open-minded about this.

At a more general level, it certainly appears to me that you are basically using circular logic - you assume that the Law remains in force and then interpret texts about how the Spirit empowers us to "obey God" to the effect that such obedience includes the Law of Moses. And yet, we can perfectly legitimately interpret them without reference to the Law of Moses - God can instil in us, via the Spirit, a strong moral sense - no need for the Law.

Even when you see all the Biblical texts, you don't believe them. It's very, very, very simple:

The Law is summed up by Christ: The law teaches us to love the LORD our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves - but we cannot obey it, so Christ came as the Son of Man and the last Adam, obeyed it on our behalf, took the punishment the Law prescribes for sin and which we deserve upon Himself, died, abolishing the Mosaic Law in His flesh, rose again, and now puts His Spirit in us, lives in us if we through faith place ourselves under His authority, and produces the fruit in us Himself.

Jesus does not want any disciple of His to return to what Paul called "the weak and beggarly elements".

It's exasperating because you use circular logic, then ask where the scriptures exist because you don't believe what they say.

So I'm not going round in circles with you with this any longer. I believe Jesus and I believe Paul and the other apostles. Paul had a problem in his day with people who were teaching exactly the same things you are teaching today. I'll pray for you, asking God to lift the scales from your eyes but until then, won't be responding to any more of your posts. I'll bear in mind what you've said so that I can make myself more familiar with the circular arguments those who believe what you do use in threads like this, and try to find out exactly where your blindness comes from.

Go well and God bless

 

[Zao is life]

The "tutor" argument certainly does not help your case. In Galatians, Paul characterizes the Law as a "tutor" that has, yes, been given his walking papers:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

This is about as clear a statement as possible that we are no longer subject to the Law. No doubt, you will bend this into some sort of heavily qualified variant of bieng no longer under the Law - for example, we no longer need to seek justification via the Law, but we still need to follow it.

This strategy of introducing qualifications, unstated by the author, is a standard strategy, but a highly questionable one.

When Paul says we are no longer under a tutor, the best approach is to take him directly at his word and not imagine, without evidence, that he was speaking in a highly restricted sense.

Another excellent post! It pretty much sums up the "hermeneutics gone wrong" used by those who cannot let go of the Old Covenant.

My prayer for all new Christians and any who call themselves Christians or regard themselves as such, that they will all be brought to understand, if they do not already understand, that the blood of the New Covenant does away with the blood of the old covenant, and the old covenant with it, and if only people will understand that the old covenant is interwoven with the people's promise to obey all the Law given through Moses, which they repeatedly broke, and therefore broke the covenant, and that the New Covenant in Christ's blood is not according to that old covenant. We are a new creation in Christ.

Thank you for your participation in this thread, expos4ever. Your exegesis of the scriptures regarding the New Covenant is sound.

 

[expos4ever]

Either way, what is indisputable is that it is the enmity that is abolished, and not the law.

No, this is not how the text actually reads - come on, play fair:

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,

The above is the NASB, and no person who understands the english language, and how she is wrote, will deny that the thing that is abolished is the Law, which is further characterized as being the "enmity". But there is absolutely no getting around the syntax: this version (NASB), at least, clearly has the "Law of commandments contained in ordnances" as the object of the verb "abolish".

 

[expos4ever]

The New Covenant retains the features of the "Old Covenant" except that it is fulfilled by God, not by man.

Please support this statement with Biblical texts.

While multiple features are retained and identifiable: only one specific is changed and it is listed, therefore any feature not mentioned must be assumed to remain. This is also the repeated pattern of the promise/the covenant(s) throughout Scripture. Details of previous expressions are retained and expanded, but never shed: note the progression from the proto-evangelium in Gen 3:15, to the Abrahamic covenant of Gen 12:1-3, the Davidic covenant of II Samuel 7, and the New covenant of Jeremiah 31.

Here is the text we are talking about:

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

I see your point - Paul does seem to suggest a general pattern that covenants "don't change". Therefore, so you seem to be arguing, the need to comply with the Law, which is clearly part of God's covenant with Israel, would not change. Fair enough, but here is the problem:

1. Your basic premise appears to be that God does not change His covenants. And this does indeed appear to be supported by this statement: Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it

2. However, you then gloss over the fact that, in contradiction to this very principle, God did change a previous covenant by adding in the Law. You cannot really have it both ways - if God really does not change covenantal content, then what is the deal with adding the Law?

3. If you read what Paul is saying here carefully, he focuses on the matter of invalidating the promise associated with the covenant. So perhaps he is saying God does not change covenantal "goals" even though He does change covenantal "means".

4. Paul clearly talks throughout his writings about a new covenant that is different, in some respects at least, from the old. Otherwise, it would not be a new covenant. So why couldn't one of these ways be abolition of the Law?

In summary, if this principle of "preservation of covenantal content" can be violated by adding the Law, why cannot it not then be violated by abolition of the Law?

 

[expos4ever]

Dear Sir, did you fail to note the last phrase of what you quoted? Israel's purpose is not complete, a "fulfillment" awaits! What I stated is not just partially true, it's straight to the point. You're just not comfortable with the conclusion.

Please do not speculate about my "comfort". In any event, I am indeed aware that Paul says a future fulfilment is yet to come. Let me recap this thread of discussion and confess that I said something that was incorrect but that, at the end of the day, does not undercut the case for retirement of the Law.

I had claimed that since Israel has fulfilled its mission of being a "blessing to the nations", the Law, which is really what marked out Israel as a distinct nation, can be retired. Well, it turns out that, according to Romans 11, Israel still has some blessings to give. Fair enough, my mistake.

But that does not challenge the argument that the Law has played its part in the overall redemption narrative. And therefore can be retired. So even if Israel continues to bless, they can do so without the Law of Moses.

So to summarize: if the Law of Moses had a very specific goal - and I believe that is did - and if that goal was achieved at the Cross - and I believe it was - one can reasonably assert that the Law can now (as of the cross, that is) be retired.

 

[literaryjoe]

You are, I suggest, introducing an unsupported qualification that the law only comes to an end in one sense, while remaining in effect in another sense. If Paul really believes the law lives on to guide our behaviour why does he say this?

He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross

He very simply does not say that. Here is what he does say: "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross."

 

[expos4ever]

He very simply does not say that. Here is what he does say: "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross."

I agree that the translation that I used (not sure what it was) is not aligned with other translations. But the argument that Paul is saying the Law of Moses is retired is strengthened by what he goes on to write:

having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Clearly, Paul is saying the Law no longer applies.

 

[literaryjoe]

No, this is not how the text actually reads - come on, play fair:

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,

The above is the NASB, and no person who understands the english language, and how she is wrote, will deny that the thing that is abolished is the Law, which is further characterized as being the "enmity". But there is absolutely no getting around the syntax: this version (NASB), at least, clearly has the "Law of commandments contained in ordnances" as the object of the verb "abolish".

The direct object of the verb abolish is enmity.

If you want to argue that the phrase, "ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin katargesas" modifies ecthran/enmity by specifying that "enmity" is synonymous with "the law of commandments contained in ordinances," okay, that's a plausible alternative—one represented by the NASB, and shown here in the diagram—but to say that the law is abolished and is characterized by enmity simply defies reality.

Hopefully you'll also notice that "which is" does not exist in the Greek, and is an interpolation supplied by the translators. It represents one option for how to correctly understand Paul's sentence.

 

[expos4ever]

View attachment 275830

The direct object of the verb abolish is enmity.

If you want to argue that the phrase, "ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin katargesas" modifies ecthran/enmity by specifying that "enmity" is synonymous with "the law of commandments contained in ordinances," okay, that's a plausible alternative—one represented by the NASB, and shown here in the diagram—but to say that the law is abolished and is characterized by enmity simply defies reality.

Hopefully you'll also notice that "which is" does not exist in the Greek, and is an interpolation supplied by the translators. It represents one option for how to correctly understand Paul's sentence.

I am not a linguistics expert so I will take your word that the original Greek is such that we are not forced, as we would be in the NASB version, to understand that Paul is saying the Law is being abolished. And, to your credit, you allow for at least the possibility that the NASB got it right. But what I do not understand is this statement: "but to say that the law is abolished and is characterized by enmity simply defies reality".

I suggest there is every reason to understand that the Law of Moses produces enmity between Jew and Gentile, and therefore could be identified with it (i.e. so in saying the enmity is abolished, the Law comes along for ride). Surely you must acknowledge that by following the Law of Moses, the Jew very distinctly sets himself apart from the Gentile - the food laws, the festivals, the clothing, etc. And surely you can imagine that when Jews would claim that these activities (following the Law) mark them out as God's chosen people, "enmity" would no doubt arise.

 

[literaryjoe]

I agree that the translation that I used (not sure what it was) is not aligned with other translations. But the argument that Paul is saying the Law of Moses is retired is strengthened by what he goes on to write:

having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Clearly, Paul is saying the Law no longer applies.

Let's read this carefully and see if it supports your assertion.

First, without dispute is that what was cancelled is the record or certificate of debt that condemned us. So what was nailed to the cross was not the law, but its function as a "record of debt." This is important, because this actual content makes sense of what comes in verse 16, while what is often read into the text does not. So the condemnatory function of the law has been cancelled (which is also supported by Rom 8:1) and (skipping verse 15 for now, as it takes us to a pretty different topic) we get to the "therefore" of verse 16, clearly establishing (as you emphasized above) a connection with what came before. So what does Paul then say, "no one is to act as your judge if you eat what God has forbidden or stop observing God's festivals, the new moon, or the Sabbath day." Oh, sorry, that's not what he wrote is it?

"no one is to act as your judge (an act of condemnation) in regard to [the list]..." Let's deal first with the festivals and Sabbath, as lend themselves to analysis most clearly, and then we'll come back to "food and drink." Which of the following does "in regard to" most naturally suggest?

1. no one is to act as your judge if you keep the festivals, new moon, or Sabbath
2. no one is to act as your judge if you don't keep the festivals, new moon, or Sabbath
3. no one is to act as your judge regarding how you keep the festivals, new moon, or Sabbath
4. no one is to act as your judge regarding when you keep the festivals, new moon, or Sabbath

Let's first acknowledge that the text does not indicate which option is in view. Folks should really stop assuming so much about this passage, as if it is a slam dunk for their view. It's not, and it actually suggests the opposite.

So the least likely option is "if you don't" for two reasons. First, "in regard to" describes a thing that is, and is unlikely to describe a thing that isn't. It's not impossible, but it's unlikely. Second, historically speaking, there is no evidence of anyone (at all, not a scintilla of evidence) who did not observe the Sabbath. That didn't appear in history till much later. In fact, 330 years later in Constantinople, John Chrysostom is fervently and desperately trying to convince his congregants to stop keeping the Sabbath and other festivals. Weird.

We know for a fact that 40-60 years after Paul died, Ignatius advised his congregants to observe both the Sabbath and Sunday, but not to do so in the manner of the Judaizers. Hunh! That sounds a lot like a "how" doesn't it? Is there any other historical evidence in favor of how? Sure. First, this would have been a radical change that would have marked Paul as a false prophet, since he was overturning Scripture. So there's that. Second, there were four extant calendars at the time Paul wrote this, so how/when to observe would have been a big deal, depending on whether someone converted to Christianity with a background of living according to the Pharisaic calendar (lunar), the Sadducean calendar (lunar), the Essene calendar (solar), or the Roman calendar (solar). There was also a short-lived Roman experiment with an 8-day week, but that probably didn't play a significant role here.

So Paul just got done saying "condemnation is nailed to the cross" and then he says (in effect) don't condemn each other "in regard to" food and drink, the festivals, new moons, and the Sabbath. Consider the environment of this forum, for example. Think if there were fierce proponents of one calendar over an alternative that there might have been people condemning each other for what they believe/did?

This also makes excellent sense of Romans 14, by the way. There is no possible way that Paul is referring to keeping Sabbath or eating unclean food as "matters of opinion." It is impossible, we can only imagine it because of long conditioning, but for his audience, who had been conditioned by three thousand years of the same definition of right and wrong: impossible. Imagine if someone came along and suggested to you that whether adultery was right or wrong is a "matter of opinion."

Finally, as it pertains to "food and drink." Is there any drink forbidden by the law of Moses? No. So what is it doing here, if this passage is overturning the ongoing validity of God's commands in the law of Moses? However, was there a contemporary issue about whether to drink wine or not? There sure was. It had to do with whether that wine had been dedicated to an idol, and also with the concept of asceticism which the proto-gnostics were already suggesting (and which is also reference in Romans 14).

 

[literaryjoe]

I am not a linguistics expert so I will take your word that the original Greek is such that we are not forced, as we would be in the NASB version, to understand that Paul is saying the Law is being abolished. And, to your credit, you allow for at least the possibility that the NASB got it right. But what I do not understand is this statement: "but to say that the law is abolished and is characterized by enmity simply defies reality".

I suggest there is every reason to understand that the Law of Moses produces enmity between Jew and Gentile, and therefore could be identified with it (i.e. so in saying the enmity is abolished, the Law comes along for ride). Surely you must acknowledge that by following the Law of Moses, the Jew very distinctly sets himself apart from the Gentile - the food laws, the festivals, the clothing, etc. And surely you can imagine that when Jews would claim that these activities (following the Law) mark them out as God's chosen people, "enmity" would no doubt arise.

Sorry, I can see how my statement could be confusing. When I said, "but to say that the law is abolished and is characterized by enmity simply defies reality," I was partially quoting you:

The above is the NASB, and no person who understands the english language, and how she is wrote, will deny that the thing that is abolished is the Law, which is further characterized as being the "enmity". But there is absolutely no getting around the syntax: this version (NASB), at least, clearly has the "Law of commandments contained in ordnances" as the object of the verb "abolish".

so what I was saying is that it is impossible to support the claim that the direct object of abolish is Law, rather than enmity.

As for my argument for a more likely interpretation of how the passage ought to be understood, I'll let my preceding explanation stand as sufficient.

 

[literaryjoe]

I suggest there is every reason to understand that the Law of Moses produces enmity between Jew and Gentile, and therefore could be identified with it (i.e. so in saying the enmity is abolished, the Law comes along for ride). Surely you must acknowledge that by following the Law of Moses, the Jew very distinctly sets himself apart from the Gentile - the food laws, the festivals, the clothing, etc. And surely you can imagine that when Jews would claim that these activities (following the Law) mark them out as God's chosen people, "enmity" would no doubt arise.

Oh. And I have also previously argued that the law of Moses, or customs deriving from it, caused enmity between Jew and Gentile. So this is not a point of divergence, but it does cause me to wonder how carefully you've been reading me...

 

[literaryjoe]

Another excellent post! It pretty much sums up the "hermeneutics gone wrong" used by those who cannot let go of the Old Covenant.
...
Thank you for your participation in this thread, expos4ever. Your exegesis of the scriptures regarding the New Covenant is sound.

SMH, this post really made me sad...all the more so because expos4ever has some real potential in the realm of exegesis and I hope that he or she will continue to pursue further development. But, the need for further training in logic, hermeneutics, and language has definitely been demonstrated in this thread.

"It pretty much sums up the 'hermeneutics gone wrong' used by those who cannot let go of the Old Covenant."

If you intend for that to refer to me (which you may not), then clearly you have not been reading me carefully. My perspective (as I have already stated) is that the Old Covenant functions as the relationship between an unbeliever and God's law. It is imperative (in the most profound sense of that word) that someone let go of the Old Covenant, because the Old Covenant applies to someone who seeks to earn their salvation via their own works.

"Faith is opposed to earning, not to effort."

My attention to the particulars of God's law has done nothing in my life/heart except heighten my understanding that there is not the slightest shred of hope that I could ever earn any merit in God's sight. Instead, my wonder, my profound gratitude, my sense of utter dependence on God, and my deep appreciation for His mercy, grace, loving-kindness, and long-suffering have all been expanded to levels I've never previously experienced. Along with it, as I see the truly majestic wisdom of God's foresight, planning, understanding, the way in which His laws anticipate and direct literally everything to the benefit of His people and His mission, the praise that flows from my heart has magnified a thousand-fold. I've been a believer since I was four years old, and nothing else has deepened my worship of God like the study and application of His laws.

Let's consider for a moment expos4ever's comments on the tutor.

"The "tutor" argument certainly does not help your case. In Galatians, Paul characterizes the Law as a "tutor" that has, yes, been given his walking papers:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

This is about as clear a statement as possible that we are no longer subject to the Law. No doubt, you will bend this into some sort of heavily qualified variant of bieng no longer under the Law - for example, we no longer need to seek justification via the Law, but we still need to follow it.

This strategy of introducing qualifications, unstated by the author, is a standard strategy, but a highly questionable one.

When Paul says we are no longer under a tutor, the best approach is to take him directly at his word and not imagine, without evidence, that he was speaking in a highly restricted sense.

Another excellent post!" you say. But there is nothing excellent about it. It radically misses how the paidagogos worked, and what Paul's illustration signifies. And the tutor illustration confirms my case at every point!

"the Law as a 'tutor' has, yes, been given his walking papers:"

but that's not what Paul says, and it's not how this heir-tutor relationship worked! This is not "excellent," it's inaccurate!

What are we to understand from this illustration?

"The time arrives when the boy is no longer a mere child. The grim discipline of his earlier days is not necessary any more. The rod can be laid aside, the custodian given a different assignment. Some parents seem to forget that little children grow up, and that there comes a time when from the discipline of outward precepts they can advance to the free expression of inner principles." (emphasis original)

William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of Galatians, vol. 8, New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001. 148.

See? The graduation of the "boy" from under the pedagogue's tutelage to free heir is not a dismissal ("given his walking papers"), it's a recognition of maturity. It's a move from mandated, punishable guidance, to the acceptance of moving in the same spirit as has been taught, but now via inner principle, now it's "written on the heart." One might say that we are no longer under the law, we are now over it: trusted to wield it responsibly, but no longer subject to its punitive force.

Paul reminds his readers that if getting their inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise (3:18a). The inheritance is either by way of the law or by way of promise. It is not a little of this and a little of the other. And the Scriptures are clear: God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise (3:18b).

The law is, therefore, excluded when it comes to inheriting God’s blessing to Abraham. And that blessing is acceptance as one of God’s people, or in other words, justification. It is thus the way of the promise, accepted by faith in Christ, which provides justification. We should not seek justification through obeying the law." (emphasis original)​

Samuel Ngewa, Galatians, Africa Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Hippo Books, 2010), 114.​

I hope you will notice how this author does precisely what expos4ever has claimed is "heavily qualified" or "circular reasoning." But it's the furthest thing from either of those assertions; it's precisely what Paul is doing. And, it's precisely what all law is designed to do. Imagine you had a permanent pardon from state law: how does that change your relationship to the speed limit? It no longer has the power to condemn you, but it continues to instruct you in what is a safe speed. Nothing circular here, no special pleading or unwarranted qualification: just the text itself accurately understood and represented.

“The gospel of Christ crucified, as Paul saw it, so completely ruled out the law as a means of getting right with God that it was scarcely credible that people who had once embraced such a gospel should ever turn to the law for salvation.” (emphasis mine)

F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 148.

Apparently F.F. Bruce and I engaged in the same "heavy qualification."

"From start to finish, the whole Christian life is by grace through faith. A new life in Christ commences with faith, continues by faith, and will be completed through faith. To put this another way, the gospel is for Christians just as much as it is for non-Christians. We never advance beyond the good news of the cross and the empty tomb. There is nothing else to add to faith as the ground of our salvation because faith unites us to Jesus Christ. Works have no part in establishing the basis for our salvation, but are added to faith in much the same way that a building rests upon and rises from its foundation. Therefore, the Christian always looks back to the gospel and never to the law as the basis for his righteousness before God." (emphasis mine)

Philip Graham Ryken, Galatians, ed. Richard D. Phillips, Philip Graham Ryken, and Daniel M. Doriani, Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2005), 90–91.

Good grief! What is wrong with all these Christians scholars? Ryken is using "heavy qualification" too! Continuing with Ryken's illustration of the building and foundation, let's ask some questions.

Let's not destroy (or prevent) the building that exists upon the foundation of justification. Is that building dependent upon our works? Sort of yes, sort of no. Our sanctification rests entirely upon our justification, but our involvement or effort, is an intrinsic part of the process of sanctification (not of our positional sanctification).

But does that building require blueprints, good building principles, etc.? Why, yes, it does.

Does a mature builder require a mentor to treat him like an apprentice? No, he does not.

Does he forget all that his mentor taught him? No! He walks in the way of what his mentor taught him!

When he was an apprentice, could the mentor have fired the builder? Sure.

Can he fire him now that he has received his justification as a builder in his own right? No, of course not.

Does he, therefore, now ignore everything the mentor taught him? What kind of crazy question is that? Of course he doesn't!

Does a mature builder throw away the blueprints or the building code? Of course not.

"Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.
Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me.
I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation.
I understand more than the aged, for I keep your precepts.
I hold back my feet from every evil way, in order to keep your word.
I do not turn aside from your rules, for you have taught me.
How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path."
Psalm 119:97-105

 

[visionary]

 

[Malihah]

Jesus taught others to believe the Gospel.

 

[Malihah]

 

[LoveGodsWord]

 

[literaryjoe]

Jesus taught others to believe the Gospel.

Then you would be wrong. Paul specifically said, after quoting from the law (Deuteronomy 30), "that is the word of faith we proclaim" (Rom 10:8).

VII. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

 

[Malihah]

Then you would be wrong. Paul specifically said, after quoting from the law (Deuteronomy 30), "that is the word of faith we proclaim" (Rom 10:8).

You were wrong the moment Luther walked away from the true Church and never repented of it. Everything the Protestant nation has done for the last 500 years will be written off as a total loss. Christianity is membership based and you're not in the club.