Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You do know Paul wrote the book of romans to gentiles, years after the council of Jerusalem gad only asked the gentile converts to follow only four hewish laws. I am sure they were not fearful they would have to be circumcised in the flesh.
No I is not faulty. Anyone who says they are perfectly sinless I either a liar or has watered down Gods laws far below the standard they are set at
Paul faultlesslyobeyed all the law apart from the moral lawIt appears you partly agree with me. You are saying Paul obeyed the law flawlessly was not in regards to the moral law, but it was in regards to Pharisee's ritual laws, or traditions, etc.
But we disagree on Romans 7. You believe the moral laws are abrogated in regards to a person's salvation and that by just believing in Jesus alone will provide the believer with some kind of obedience either appearance wise or that it will give them enough obedience to pass themselves off as being born again to others; However, they will also be found present as a sinner (Which to me is a contradiction in terms). You are either defined as being a born again person by your obedience to God (i.e. by not living in a bunch of horrible sins), or you are found present as a sinner. You can't have it both ways. You cannot serve two masters. For you will hate the one and love the other. Either one is serving God or they are serving sin. Serving God while still holding onto sin by declaring that one will sin again in the future is not serving God.
For who was the Law made for?
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. (1 Timothy 1:9-11).
"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8).
How can a person use the Law in a lawful way?
Well, the law has changed (Hebrews 7:12).
But that does not mean God's moral laws have been aprogated. God's eternal moral laws have been carried over into the New. For Paul himself says if we love our neighbor it fulfills the Law, i.e. the moral laws such as not coveting, not stealing, etc. (See Romans 13:8-10).
...
Paul faultlesslyobeyed all the law apart from the moral law
No one is truly righteous as David agreed(psalms143:2)Yeah, but how do you detach Romans 3:11 from Romans 3:10 and Romans 3:23? It doesn't sound consistent to me. If you are claiming that all are sinners (even in this present moment), then you also have to conclude that verse 11 is saying that nobody understands the things of God and that nobody seeks after God (in the present moment), too.
...
Then if you now agree Paul could faultlessly obey all the law apart from the moral law, as you believe Paul is not speaking of the moral law in gal3:10&11. Why would Paul be cursed and unable to be justified by law he could perfectly obey?Yes, I believe we now agree on that point in regards to Paul's past life before he became a Christian. But we do not agree on the other point, though.
...
it wad Galatians where Paul was more concerned they were trying to follow legalistic law. Hence 5;2Yes, the church at Rome and the Galatia were primarily Gentile. That does not change the fact that some of them were deceived by the Pharisees into thinking they needed to be circumcised in order to be saved.
So what do you make of Galatians 5:2 then if Paul was not talking about circumcision in the book of Galatians?
...
you cannot support your belief Paul only spoke of a righteousness apart from the law that did not include the moral law. I have proved my belief correct according to scriptureI provide plenty of Scriptures verses many times to back up what I have said. So this is simply not true.
...
I believe this translation captures the heart of what the verse is trying to say.No one is truly righteous as David agreed(psalms143:2)
Naturally speaking the human cannot understand or seek God, for Jesus said. Bo one can come to me unless the father draws him.
What David meant when he said no one was righteous before God, was no one could perfectly obey the law. The standard to be truly righteous under it is 100% perfect obedienceI believe this translation captures the heart of what the verse is trying to say.
"Be kind and slow to judge Your faithful servant, for compared to You, no one is truly just." (Psalm 143:2 VOICE).
In other words, David is saying that no man alone apart from God is not righteous or just. For there is none good but God. All good and all righteousness comes from the Lord and works in a believer's life. A man without God has no hope in doing any true good on his own.
....
It
it wad Galatians where Paul was more concerned they were trying to follow legalistic law. Hence 5;2
What David meant when he said no one was righteous before God, was no one could perfectly obey the law. The standard to be truly righteous under it is 100% perfect obedience
No
you cannot support your belief Paul only spoke of a righteousness apart from the law that did not include the moral law. I have proved my belief correct according to scripture
A person needs God to do His good work thru Him. A person on their own cannot be righteous without God.
....
A person needs God to do His good work thru Him. A person on their own cannot be righteous without God.
....
Circumcision is older than the law given at sanai it was in existence over 400 years before the law was given
Let's not turn this into a "great taste" vs. a "less filling" debate. Scripture or the Word of God needs to be used here to make our points. Both of us saying, "I am right and you are wrong" does not really accomplish anything.
....
I agree a person can do nothing of themself. But the christian has no righteousness of their own(phil3:9) there only righteousness is faith in christ
Then please respond to my post(a few posts backin reference to gal3:10&11Let's not turn this into a "great taste" vs. a "less filling" debate. Scripture or the Word of God needs to be used here to make our points. Both of us saying, "I am right and you are wrong" does not really accomplish anything.
....
I agree a person can do nothing of themself. But the christian has no righteousness of their own(phil3:9) there only righteousness is faith in christ
Then please respond to my post(a few posts backin reference to gal3:10&11
SiN existed before the law was given, but not taken into account(rom5:13)Yes, which proves there were commands or laws and sin even before the Law of Moses came into being. God is never against His own laws. It's how one tries to obey His laws is where it gets tricky. If one seeks to obey God's Laws without a Savior then they are not going to make it. For it is God who is the One who helps the believer to obey. For without Christ we can do nothing. Without Christ there is no forgiveness of sin.
...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?