The Perfect Law

[Dkh587]

No one but Christ ever obeyed the law. Study the bible, as it say in John chapter 8 verse 31,32 you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.
As it is now you don't know the truth and your a hypocrite.

Christ taught and obeyed the law. You may not like it - but that's a fact. No amount of name calling and accusations will change that.

The way of life that Christ TAUGHT AND LIVED was a life that was according to God's commandments. He showed us how we should live. Well, if he lived according to God's commandments, why wouldn't we follow His example?

You make Christ out to be lawless and a sinner. I know you don't really believe that in your heart, but your doctrine teaches that Christ promoted lawlessness.

 

[disciple1]

Christ taught and obeyed the law. You may not like it - but that's a fact. No amount of name calling and accusations will change that.

The way of life that Christ TAUGHT AND LIVED was a life that was according to God's commandments. He showed us how we should live. Well, if he lived according to God's commandments, why wouldn't we follow His example?

You make Christ out to be lawless and a sinner. I know you don't really believe that in your heart, but your doctrine teaches that Christ promoted lawlessness.

I said no one ever obeyed the law except Christ. You must not listen to anyone except yourself, you sure don't listen to Christ.

You make Christ out to be lawless and a sinner.

Like I said no one ever obeyed the law but Christ, and he said let the one without sin throw the first stone, but you don't listen to him either.
Romans chapter 4
13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

And look what it say in verse 14
14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless,

Study the bible maybe you'll know something you can share, right now all your sharing is hate.

 

[Dkh587]

I said no one ever obeyed the law except Christ.

Luke 1:5-6 ESV
In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah.
And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of YAH.

What does it mean to walk in all of God's commandments blamelessly? I thought it wasn't possible to obey God's commandments?

And btw, I'm not depending on the law of God to be an heir. I depend on Christ to be an heir. That doesn't mean it's okay to disobey God's commands.

 

[Apex]

Then why does James quote the 10 Commandments when he's talking about it?

Positive reappropriation.

In my view, James' (and other NT writer's) use of positive reappropriation of the Mosaic Law for moral teaching is evidence neither of inconsistency (contradicting their insistence that believers are not under the law) nor an indication that their repudiation of the Mosaic Law is only partial (as in, just the so-called "civil and ceremonial" laws). The key to understanding James' use of the Mosaic Law for ethics is hermeneutical. The Law of Moses is still of value for Christian conduct as wisdom.

The Law of Moses is a critical and formative source for moral teachings on several topics. Why not utilize it? Rather than reading the Mosaic Law as law, James and Paul read it as wisdom for living, in the sense that they feel it proper to make reflective and expansive applications with it.

This does not mean they felt that they are under the jurisdiction of it though! They knew they were part of a New Covenant. New wine in a fresh wineskin.

 

[corinth77777]

When I say a believer does not do works to get clean, I am not referring to the Sanctification process (which is a different type of cleansing). I am referring to when a believer sins. They need to confess their sins to Jesus to be forgiven (See 1 John 2:2, 1 John 1:9). This also includes continued faith or trust in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection (on our behalf for our salvation).



A person is saved initially by God's grace without any works (Ephesians 2:8-9). This is how we are ultimately saved. However, we have to continue to abide in Christ who is the source of our salvation. For he that has the Son has life, and he that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12). When I say we have to continue to abide in Christ, this will involve works because it is Christ (God) who does the good work within a believer's life. So yes, works are a part of the salvation process, but they are ultimately a result of abiding in Christ and His words. For one of the tests of knowing Christ or not is if we find we are keeping His Commandments (1 John 2:3-4).


...

It's not "any works" but any works of righteousness .....but through Faith

So I did agree...

 

[disciple1]

What does it mean to walk in all of God's commandments blamelessly? I thought it wasn't possible to obey God's commandments?

And btw, I'm not depending on the law of God to be an heir. I depend on Christ to be an heir. That doesn't mean it's okay to disobey God's commands.

Romans chapter 4
13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

I've studied the bible 35 years the first 25 I thought like you because I hadn't studied enough.


Galatians chapter 3 verse 17
What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.


And so the law introduced 2000 years later, does not do away with the promise.

 

[Soyeong]

Not true. Peter's vision from God told him that he can eat unclean animals. This message was two fold.

1. You can can eat unclean animals.
2. The message of the gospel is for the Gentile people also.

Peter's vision had absolutely nothing to do with saying that we can now eat unclean animals. It said that all kinds of animals were let down in his vision, so why didn't Peter obey God's command by simply killing at eating one of the clean animals? Why did he object to doing what God's Law permitted him to do? The issue was that there was a man-made ritual purity law that said that something clean that came in contact with something unclean became defiled or common (Mark 7:3-4) and because all of animals in his vision were bundled together at the bottom of the sheet held up by four corners all of the clean animals in his vision had become common. So by saying that he had never eaten anything that was common or unclean, Peter was saying that he had never broken this man-man ritual purity law or God's dietary laws, and by refusing to kill and eat one of the clean animals Peter was disobeying God in order to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke Peter for referring to clean animals as unclean, but referring to clean animals as common, so his vision had nothing to do with the status of unclean animals and was only in regard to the incorrect status of clean animals, which he interpreted three times as being in regard to the incorrect status of Gentiles without even hinting at saying that he was now free to eat unclean animals. With no other vision in the Bible do we reinterpret to mean anything other that the stated interpretation.

According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, so if Peter had tried to subtract God's dietary laws, then he would have sinned and needed to repent. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to tell that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they led them away from following what God had commanded, so if Peter had tried to them that they no longer had to follow what God had commanded, then they would have been quicker to disregard him as a false prophet than to accept what he said as being from God, and you should do the same if you believe that is what Peter said. The bottom line is that when God said not to do something and you think Peter said that we are free to do that, then you need to decide who has the higher authority and whether to be a follower of God or of Peter, but I do not think that Peter ever spoke against anyone obeying anything that God had commanded.

Paul also condemned circumcision as a part of one's faith for salvation. Galatians 5:2 is clear on this. This means we are not under the Old Covenant. Yes, there are "Eternal Moral Laws." But ceremonial laws are not primarily moral laws.


...

Again, we must obey God rather than man, so it is critically important to distinguish between what is said about man's law and about God's Law. If you can't show me anywhere in the Bible where God required all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, then you should be willing to grant that it is not something that God's required and is therefore a man-made requirement. While God did require Jews to become circumcised, not even they were required to become circumcised in order to become saved, but rather the one and only way that there has ever been to become saved has only ever been by grace through faith. So in Acts 15:1, the Jerusalem Council was upholding God Law by rejecting that man-made requirement, and Paul was dealing with the same issue throughout Galatians.

I completely agree that we are not under the Mosaic Covenant, but we are nevertheless still under the same God, who is eternal and does not change. God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so therefore His Laws or instructions for how to act in accordance with His righteousness are also eternal (Psalms 119:160). If the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness changed when the Mosaic Covenant or the New Covenant were made, then that could only happen is God's righteousness first changed, but again God's righteousness is eternal and does not change. So God's covenants did not change the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness, but rather they revealed what has always been and will always been the way to practice righteousness. This means that anyone who wants to find out how to practice righteousness can do so by reading the Mosaic Law regardless of which covenant, if any, they are under, but as part of the New Covenant, we are still told to practice righteousness (1 John 3:10).

The same goes for acting in accordance with God's eternal holiness. What you referred to as ceremonial laws are essentially God's instructions for how to act in accordance with His holiness and in 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to follow those instructions. Morality is based on God and it is always immoral to disobey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws.

 

[Dkh587]

I've studied the bible 35 years the first 25 I thought like you because I hadn't studied enough.


Galatians chapter 3 verse 17
What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.


And so the law introduced 2000 years later, does not do away with the promise.

Your response had nothing to do with what I posted. I wasn't talking about the promise to Abraham or any of God's covenants.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I do not believe we are under the Law...including the 10 commandments.
For salvation.

We are under the Law of Christ, law of love, and the Law of faith

If you are walking by the Spirit

For we must be circumcised of the heart that the outcome is the flesh naturally responds to it.

When we yeild ourselves to the Spirit the Law is naturally kept.
For what one yields oneself to is what they obey. The spirit..life and peace or flesh death and distruction

But the law of love or the law of faith includes obeying the moral law. One obeys the moral law of the 9 out of the 10 commandments (Sabbath excluded) if they love their neighbor (See Romans 13:8-10).

There are dire consequences in the after life if a believer does not keep the moral law like not murdering, not committing adultery, etc. Paul lists these kinds of sins several times and says they that do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21) (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) (Ephesians 5:3-7).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Peter's vision had absolutely nothing to do with saying that we can now eat unclean animals. It said that all kinds of animals were let down in his vision, so why didn't Peter obey God's command by simply killing at eating one of the clean animals? Why did he object to doing what God's Law permitted him to do? The issue was that there was a man-made ritual purity law that said that something clean that came in contact with something unclean became defiled or common (Mark 7:3-4) and because all of animals in his vision were bundled together at the bottom of the sheet held up by four corners all of the clean animals in his vision had become common. So by saying that he had never eaten anything that was common or unclean, Peter was saying that he had never broken this man-man ritual purity law or God's dietary laws, and by refusing to kill and eat one of the clean animals Peter was disobeying God in order to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke Peter for referring to clean animals as unclean, but referring to clean animals as common, so his vision had nothing to do with the status of unclean animals and was only in regard to the incorrect status of clean animals, which he interpreted three times as being in regard to the incorrect status of Gentiles without even hinting at saying that he was now free to eat unclean animals. With no other vision in the Bible do we reinterpret to mean anything other that the stated interpretation.

According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, so if Peter had tried to subtract God's dietary laws, then he would have sinned and needed to repent. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to tell that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they led them away from following what God had commanded, so if Peter had tried to them that they no longer had to follow what God had commanded, then they would have been quicker to disregard him as a false prophet than to accept what he said as being from God, and you should do the same if you believe that is what Peter said. The bottom line is that when God said not to do something and you think Peter said that we are free to do that, then you need to decide who has the higher authority and whether to be a follower of God or of Peter, but I do not think that Peter ever spoke against anyone obeying anything that God had commanded.



Again, we must obey God rather than man, so it is critically important to distinguish between what is said about man's law and about God's Law. If you can't show me anywhere in the Bible where God required all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, then you should be willing to grant that it is not something that God's required and is therefore a man-made requirement. While God did require Jews to become circumcised, not even they were required to become circumcised in order to become saved, but rather the one and only way that there has ever been to become saved has only ever been by grace through faith. So in Acts 15:1, the Jerusalem Council was upholding God Law by rejecting that man-made requirement, and Paul was dealing with the same issue throughout Galatians.

I completely agree that we are not under the Mosaic Covenant, but we are nevertheless still under the same God, who is eternal and does not change. God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so therefore His Laws or instructions for how to act in accordance with His righteousness are also eternal (Psalms 119:160). If the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness changed when the Mosaic Covenant or the New Covenant were made, then that could only happen is God's righteousness first changed, but again God's righteousness is eternal and does not change. So God's covenants did not change the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness, but rather they revealed what has always been and will always been the way to practice righteousness. This means that anyone who wants to find out how to practice righteousness can do so by reading the Mosaic Law regardless of which covenant, if any, they are under, but as part of the New Covenant, we are still told to practice righteousness (1 John 3:10).

The same goes for acting in accordance with God's eternal holiness. What you referred to as ceremonial laws are essentially God's instructions for how to act in accordance with His holiness and in 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to follow those instructions. Morality is based on God and it is always immoral to disobey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws.

Matthew 15:11
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

1 Timothy 4:1-5
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

Romans 14:14-15
"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died."

Acts of the Apostles 10:11-15
"And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."


...

 

[Neogaia777]

The law is the beginning and the end, but NOT the "in between"...

The law must first condemn you, and kill you, so that you can be born again, and walk in the start of the middle, which is the new covenant, that, by the end of it, fulfills the Old Law covenant, and the covenant of faith, by the covenant of faith...

 

[Neogaia777]

The law is the beginning and the end, but NOT the "in between"...

The law must first condemn you, and kill you, so that you can be born again, and walk in the start of the middle, which is the new covenant, that, by the end of it, fulfills the Old Law covenant, and the covenant of faith, by the covenant of faith...

Most of us are somewhere in-between until were made whole and complete, at which point, you'll be fulfilling the Old Covenant also...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No one but Christ ever obeyed the law. Study the bible, as it say in John chapter 8 verse 31,32 you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.
As it is now you don't know the truth and your a hypocrite.

You do not understand that the reason why Christ died, my friend. Jesus did not die so that we can live like hypocrites telling people to follow the Bible that is filled with many commands from Jesus and His followers (in the New Testament) and yet we do not obey those commands ourselves. That would be hypocritical. If you told people to not follow the Bible or Jesus, then that would be different. Surely you believe in following Jesus and the Bible. For if you do not follow Jesus and the Bible, then that is not the truth faith. For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). But I am sure you believe in following Jesus and the Bible. It is just that you do not think we have to obey Him in order to be saved. This is totally backwards to what God's Word says. How so?

Ephesians 5:25-27 and Titus 2:14 gives us the REASON why Christ died (gave Himself) for us.

Ephesians 5:25-27 says,
25 "...even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

Titus 2:14 says,
"Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

Not sure you caught what these two pieces of Scripture are saying, but Ephesians 5 says that Christ gave (i.e. sacrificed) Himself so that He might sanctify the church (i.e. us believers) by the Word (i.e. the Holy Scriptures) so as to present to Himself a church that is without spot, wrinkle, holy, and without blemish. Jesus does this by the Word of God (the Holy Scriptures). For 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that all Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be PERFECT enter EVERY good work. Perfect for every good work for what reason? To make us holy and without blemish. That is the reason why Christ died for us.

Titus 2:14 says that Christ died for us so that He might redeem us from all iniquity to purify unto Himself a PECULIAR people who are zealous of GOOD WORKS. So good works is one of the reason's why Christ died for us. We are to be peculiar and or different from other people.

"That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;." (Philippians 2:15).

Yet, by what you are saying, it sounds like we do not have to be shining lights to world or nation that is crooked and perverse. According to what you have said, it sounds like we do not have to be blameless sons of God who are without rebuke.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No one but Christ ever obeyed the law. Study the bible, as it say in John chapter 8 verse 31,32 you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.
As it is now you don't know the truth and your a hypocrite.

What is ironic is that you quote a verse that actually refutes what you are saying here.

Jesus says,
"...If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;" (John 8:31).

We are to continue in his Word if we are Christ's disciples. Remember, the many disciples stopped following Jesus (John 6:66). They did not continue in Christ's words.

The reason why the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus in John 8 was because His words had no place within them. For Jesus says,

"I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you." (John 8:37).

He that is of God hears God's words. But Jesus says that the Pharisees did not hear God's word and hence, they were not of God (According to Jesus). For Jesus says,

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47).

In other words, a person has to obey God's words in order to be of God.
This is nothing new in Scripture.

1 John 2:3-6 says,
3 "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Was murder, adultery, or idolatry immoral before Moses came down from the mountain with the stone tablets?

Here is my analogy: Let's say you lived in Florida and then moved to Colorado. You were once under Florida state law, but now you are under Colorado state law. Florida's laws still exist and, if you wanted, you could get on a plane and enter back under them, but while you are in Colorado you must answer to Colorado's authority - and vice versa. However, there is another "law" layer to all this. You are equally under the federal law of the United States of America while in either state. This is why many of the state laws between Florida and Colorado are the same. Just because you left Florida, where it is illegal to commit murder, and entered into another state - this does not mean murder is now legal in this new state. This is because murder is against federal law. On the other side, the laws surrounding individual property rights are vastly different. But since these laws don't contradict federal law, each state is allowed this autonomy.

So, in this analogy...
Law of Moses = Florida law
Law of Christ = Colorado law
Absolute Morality = Federal law

When it comes to the question about the relationship a Christian has with the Law of Moses - it is actually a question about jurisdiction. We are now under the Law of Christ.

Nice analogy.

I refer to "Absolute Morality" as "God's Eternal Moral Laws." These are laws that were given to man since the beginning that were always foundational for him. For example: Murder, adultery, sleeping with one's parents, stealing, lying, coveting, hate, idolatry, drunkenness, etc. were always wrong (and will always be wrong).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's not "any works" but any works of righteousness .....but through Faith

So I did agree...

Yes, it is not just any works but works of righteousness by faith that comes from God's Word. I am assuming most here believe the Bible as a Christian and that faith comes by hearing the Word of God.


...

 

[Soyeong]

I will start by noting that you did not interact with any of the points I made in my previous post, so I invite you to do.

Matthew 15:11
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

Again, we must obey God instead of man, so it important to distinguish between what is said about God's Law and what is said about about man's law. In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciple broke the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He went on to say that for the sake of their tradition they made void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6), that they worshiped God in vain because they were teaching as doctrines the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-9), so he was criticizing the Pharisees for teaching their own laws as God's Law instead of teaching God's Law, and it is critically important to be careful not to mistake something that was only against obeying what they were teaching as God's Law as being against obeying God's Law.

Aside from even more hypocritically doing what he just criticized the Pharisees for hypocritically doing, there are some major issues with your interpretation, such as Jesus being in disagreement with the Father's will when he said he only came to do the Father's will (John 6:38) and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 14:23-24). According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, so if you think that Jesus did that, then you should think that he sinned and therefore could not be our Savior. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to tell that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught them against obeying what God had commanded him even if they performed signs and wonders, so if you think Jesus did that, then you should consider him to be a false prophet instead of the Messiah even though he rose from the dead. His critics would have for once had a legitimate reason to stone him, so they would have jumped at the chance and not needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but this incident was not even brought up, and no one seemed to have even noticed that he made such as radical statement as to try to countermand the God of the universe.

Rather, Jesus was having a conversation with a group of Pharisees about a man-made ritual purity law that said that you could become defiled or common by eating kosher food with unwashed hands and his statement at the end of the conversation in Matthew 15:20 confirms that he was still speaking against the position of the Pharisees. So it is far, far more reasonable to interpret Matthew 15:11 as Jesus simply sticking to the topic of conversation and taking the opposite position of the Pharisees.

1 Timothy 4:1-5
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

Again, is Paul describing the doctrines of men or the doctrines of God? Are those teaching people to obey the holy, righteous and good laws God departing from the faith and teaching doctrines of devils? Are they speaking lies with seared consciences? Are they forbidding to marry? Are those teaching obedience to God's instructions for how to do what is godly teaching godless myths and old wive's tales that are opposed to godliness? (1 Timothy 4:7-8). It seems very clear to me that Paul was describing the teachings of men rather than of God. We know in Colossians 2:20-23 that Paul had other interactions with those who were teaching human precepts and traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, so in other words, there were people who were teaching abstinence from meats that God permitted to be eaten in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, which should be received with thanksgiving. According to Psalms 119:142, God's Law is truth, so those who believe and know the truth know it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, that unclean animals are not to be received with thanksgiving, and that unclean animals have not been sanctified by the Word of God. In other words, Paul was saying for every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused IF it is kosher.

Romans 14:14-15
"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died."


...

The topic of Romans 14 is stated in the first verse, namely it is in regard to how to handle disputes of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow His commands. No one was disputing whether to follow God's commands against idolatry, adultery, murder, theft, or any of His other commands, but they did dispute how to correctly obey them. For example, meat that had been sacrificed to idols was often later sold on the market, so if someone were at a community meal where they couldn't verify how the meat had been slaughtered, then they might be of the disputable opinion that only vegetables should be eaten (Romans 14:2). They were judging those who ate everything at the meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:3), and it is precisely this sort of judging each other over disputable opinions that Paul was seeking to quell. When God's Word gives a clear command, then human opinion must yield, but where God's Word does not give a clear ruling about whether someone could unwittingly commit idolatry by eating such meat, only then should each be convinced in their own minds. So Romans 14:14-15 is speaking against this idea that meat could become ritually unclean in itself such that someone could unwitting commit idolatry by eating it and had nothing to do with speaking against following the precious commands of the God that we follow.

 

[Noxot]

James is writing to Jewish Christians. In his letter he says:

"But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing." (James 1:25)

"If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well." (James 2:8)

"So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty." (James 2:12).​

The perfect law, the law of liberty, the royal law. What is James referring to when he uses these terms?

he is referring to the Kingdom of God and everlasting life in the Spirit as spirits.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
to fulfill even one tiny tittle of the law one must understand or live in the root of that meaning rather than the outer expression of it, which is sometimes darkened by the vail of moses. this is also one reason why Jesus often spoke in parables. those that have life in themselves shall have good things and those who have death shall have evil.

if someone does a work in devotion to God then that is between them and God. I would however suggest that they deeply search themselves out on why they do what they do, just as each of us should be trying to find out our hidden motivations. self-knowledge is sometimes difficult. try to get a hold on what spirits you tend to listen to because obviously good angels are in the kingdom of God and evil ones are in hell. so more than self-knowledge we need God to save us and guide us.

we would all greatly profit if we understood what kinds of spirits we tend to listen to seeing that many of us don't really want to do what is evil.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I will start by noting that you did not interact with any of the points I made in my previous post, so I invite you to do.

Again, we must obey God instead of man, so it important to distinguish between what is said about God's Law and what is said about about man's law. In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciple broke the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He went on to say that for the sake of their tradition they made void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6), that they worshiped God in vain because they were teaching as doctrines the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-9), so he was criticizing the Pharisees for teaching their own laws as God's Law instead of teaching God's Law, and it is critically important to be careful not to mistake something that was only against obeying what they were teaching as God's Law as being against obeying God's Law.

Aside from even more hypocritically doing what he just criticized the Pharisees for hypocritically doing, there are some major issues with your interpretation, such as Jesus being in disagreement with the Father's will when he said he only came to do the Father's will (John 6:38) and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 14:23-24). According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, so if you think that Jesus did that, then you should think that he sinned and therefore could not be our Savior. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to tell that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught them against obeying what God had commanded him even if they performed signs and wonders, so if you think Jesus did that, then you should consider him to be a false prophet instead of the Messiah even though he rose from the dead. His critics would have for once had a legitimate reason to stone him, so they would have jumped at the chance and not needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but this incident was not even brought up, and no one seemed to have even noticed that he made such as radical statement as to try to countermand the God of the universe.

Rather, Jesus was having a conversation with a group of Pharisees about a man-made ritual purity law that said that you could become defiled or common by eating kosher food with unwashed hands and his statement at the end of the conversation in Matthew 15:20 confirms that he was still speaking against the position of the Pharisees. So it is far, far more reasonable to interpret Matthew 15:11 as Jesus simply sticking to the topic of conversation and taking the opposite position of the Pharisees.

Again, is Paul describing the doctrines of men or the doctrines of God? Are those teaching people to obey the holy, righteous and good laws God departing from the faith and teaching doctrines of devils? Are they speaking lies with seared consciences? Are they forbidding to marry? Are those teaching obedience to God's instructions for how to do what is godly teaching godless myths and old wive's tales that are opposed to godliness? (1 Timothy 4:7-8). It seems very clear to me that Paul was describing the teachings of men rather than of God. We know in Colossians 2:20-23 that Paul had other interactions with those who were teaching human precepts and traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, so in other words, there were people who were teaching abstinence from meats that God permitted to be eaten in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, which should be received with thanksgiving. According to Psalms 119:142, God's Law is truth, so those who believe and know the truth know it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, that unclean animals are not to be received with thanksgiving, and that unclean animals have not been sanctified by the Word of God. In other words, Paul was saying for every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused IF it is kosher.

The topic of Romans 14 is stated in the first verse, namely it is in regard to how to handle disputes of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow His commands. No one was disputing whether to follow God's commands against idolatry, adultery, murder, theft, or any of His other commands, but they did dispute how to correctly obey them. For example, meat that had been sacrificed to idols was often later sold on the market, so if someone were at a community meal where they couldn't verify how the meat had been slaughtered, then they might be of the disputable opinion that only vegetables should be eaten (Romans 14:2). They were judging those who ate everything at the meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:3), and it is precisely this sort of judging each other over disputable opinions that Paul was seeking to quell. When God's Word gives a clear command, then human opinion must yield, but where God's Word does not give a clear ruling about whether someone could unwittingly commit idolatry by eating such meat, only then should each be convinced in their own minds. So Romans 14:14-15 is speaking against this idea that meat could become ritually unclean in itself such that someone could unwitting commit idolatry by eating it and had nothing to do with speaking against following the precious commands of the God that we follow.

This is one topic that I honestly feel God telling me to not argue or debate on. If a person goes back to the Old Law as their source of justification when it is clearly no longer binding, it is like they have tasted the new and have said the old is better.

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." (Titus 3:9).

The Scriptures I gave need no explanation. They stand against what you believe. You may have come up with a clever work around them, but that does not change what they say.


...

 

[Neogaia777]

This is one topic that I honestly feel God telling me to not argue or debate on. If a person goes back to the Old Law as their source of justification when it is clearly no longer binding, it is like they have tasted the new and have said the old is better.

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." (Titus 3:9).

The Scriptures I gave need no explanation. They stand against what you believe. You may have come up with a clever work around them, but that does not change what they say.


...

The Law is not the end then... If we try to attain to the Law, after we are saved and are adopted into Christ, is that going back to law...?

It is our "mark" our bullseye, is it not...?

Or not...?

God Bless!