True Justification, works of the Law of Moses, & Conditional Security

[stuart lawrence]

I never mentioned Abraham's descendants.

I said Abraham... received God's laws and commandments directly from Him.

because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.”
Genesis 26:5


I didn't say it was only the ten commandments, as going where the Lord sends us and to whom the Lord sends us and to specifically do what the Lord commands us are all considered HIs Commandments.


JLB

The abrahamic covenant didn't stop with Abraham. Where does it state Abraham observed a seventh day Sabbath?
Never mind, you never answer, any questions put to you

 

[JLB777]

I am afraid all you are doing with such a ridiculous reply is showing you are unable to answer questions concerning the core of the new covenant. I repeatedly told you the question was not in connection to the mosaic law. I assume you are young and haven't been a Christian very long. Hopefully you will learn more as your walk continues

LOL!!!!!

Do you observe this law of Moses?

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15

Please answer?


I answered your question.


Here is my answer again.

It's a sin to observe the law of Moses!!!


Here's why:

You would have to murder a person over an obsolete law.

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15

or for putting to death an adulterer.


Furthermore it's blasphemy to sacrifice animals for sin since the cross, as Jesus is the final sacrifice for sins.


It's a sin to observe the law of Moses!



JLB

 

[stuart lawrence]

Do you observe this law of Moses? Yes or No?

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15




JLB

Take some advice. If you want people to take your posts seriously you need to be prepared to answer questions put to you, not just make statements

 

[stuart lawrence]

LOL!!!!!

Do you observe this law of Moses?

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15

Please answer?


I answered your question.


Here is my answer again.

It's a sin to observe the law of Moses!!!


Here's why:

You would have to murder a person over an obsolete law.

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15

or for putting to death an adulterer.


Furthermore it's blasphemy to sacrifice animals for sin since the cross, as Jesus is the final sacrifice for sins.


It's a sin to observe the law of Moses!



JLB

I refer you to my previous rssponse

 

[stuart lawrence]

You are not playing fair here since you are simply assuming a particular meaning of the statement that "Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness".

And the meaning you assume appears to be this: Now that Christ has arrived, righteousness has nothing to do whatsoever with our behavior, that is, our failure to keep the law.

If your assumption turns out to be correct (I don't think it does, of course) then, indeed, a person could not be made "unrighteous" for their failure to keep the law.

One problem with your view is that "law" here is the Law of Moses and the Gentile was never under it. Therefore, it would be illogical for Paul to tell Gentiles that their righteousness has nothing to do with keeping a Law they were never under.

But your interpretation of 10:4 is not the only possibility. Another possibility - the one I believe is correct - is that Paul is saying this: The Law of Moses is part of an unfolding plan of redemption and God's purpose or goal (end) in giving the Law is that it would lead to a point in the plan of redemption where people get righteousness through what Jesus did on the Cross.

Now for the key point. If, repeat if, my interpretation is correct, the 10:4 statement is entirely silent on the matter of whether a person can, after all, be found to be unrighteous at a coming judgment based on how they have lived. All Paul is saying (in 10:4), according to my interpretation, is that the Law has led us to the point in time where Christ is revealed as the agent through which we get righteousness. But whether we need to "behave ourselves" in this Christ-centred system of righteousness remains an open question.

But Paul settles that question in Romans 2:6-7, a text you repeatedly refuse to deal with, almost certainly because you have no explanation for it within your broad interpretation:

6God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Scroll back. I wrote a lengthy post on rom2:6&7

 

[JLB777]

Scroll back. I wrote a lengthy post on rom2:6&7

Here is my answer again.

It's a sin to observe the law of Moses!!!


Here's why:

You would have to murder a person over an obsolete law.

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15

or for putting to death an adulterer.


Furthermore it's blasphemy to sacrifice animals for sin since the cross, as Jesus is the final sacrifice for sins.


It's a sin to observe the law of Moses!

 

[stuart lawrence]

You are not playing fair here since you are simply assuming a particular meaning of the statement that "Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness".

And the meaning you assume appears to be this: Now that Christ has arrived, righteousness has nothing to do whatsoever with our behavior, that is, our failure to keep the law.

If your assumption turns out to be correct (I don't think it does, of course) then, indeed, a person could not be made "unrighteous" for their failure to keep the law.

One problem with your view is that "law" here is the Law of Moses and the Gentile was never under it. Therefore, it would be illogical for Paul to tell Gentiles that their righteousness has nothing to do with keeping a Law they were never under.

But your interpretation of 10:4 is not the only possibility. Another possibility - the one I believe is correct - is that Paul is saying this: The Law of Moses is part of an unfolding plan of redemption and God's purpose or goal (end) in giving the Law is that it would lead to a point in the plan of redemption where people get righteousness through what Jesus did on the Cross.

Now for the key point. If, repeat if, my interpretation is correct, the 10:4 statement is entirely silent on the matter of whether a person can, after all, be found to be unrighteous at a coming judgment based on how they have lived. All Paul is saying (in 10:4), according to my interpretation, is that the Law has led us to the point in time where Christ is revealed as the agent through which we get righteousness. But whether we need to "behave ourselves" in this Christ-centred system of righteousness remains an open question.

But Paul settles that question in Romans 2:6-7, a text you repeatedly refuse to deal with, almost certainly because you have no explanation for it within your broad interpretation:

6God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Jesus died for a believers sins. Either hw died to wipe the slate clean at the point of conversion, of he died for all a believers sins, past, present and future.
If Jesus only died to wipe the slate clean at the point of conversion a chritian MUST be under a law of righteousness before God, they CABNOT have a righteousness before God apart from the law, and Christ CANNOT be the end of the law unto righteousness for them.
These are undeniable facts. However, your academic mind refuses to accept the truth of what I have written because all that mind tells you js, the result must be of such a belief is the christian had a licence to sin.
But if a person had been born again and loved God, they could never use such grace as a licence to sin. But your academic mind does not understand that

 

[Meowzltov]

Are you saying that you believe that God wishes Jews to continue to follow the Law of Moses?

That would mean that adulterers would be stoned, and all sorts of other illegal stuff would be happening.

But that's kind of beside the point since I believe the New Testament declares that the Law of Moses has been retired.

Yes. The Law of Moses will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away.

As to the civil penalties for breaking the laws, those were given to the theocracy of Israel. There is no theocracy of Israel and hasn't been for millenia. Don't apply laws to entities for which they were never intended.

Remember that I'm saying the Law of Moses was given to Israel. It is for us Jews. Now there are exceptional Gentiles who are called to take on the Torah, but this is unusual. Gentiles in general are under Natural Law, as is described in the NT.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Here is my answer again.

It's a sin to observe the law of Moses!!!


Here's why:

You would have to murder a person over an obsolete law.

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15

or for putting to death an adulterer.


Furthermore it's blasphemy to sacrifice animals for sin since the cross, as Jesus is the final sacrifice for sins.


It's a sin to observe the law of Moses!

I'm trying to work out if you actually do not know you are not answering the question put, or you are aware of it and simply deflecting

 

[Meowzltov]

Here is my answer again.

It's a sin to observe the law of Moses!!!


Here's why:

You would have to murder a person over an obsolete law.

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15

or for putting to death an adulterer.


Furthermore it's blasphemy to sacrifice animals for sin since the cross, as Jesus is the final sacrifice for sins.


It's a sin to observe the law of Moses!

The penalties for not keeping the mitzvot were designed for the theocracy of Israel. Don't assume they are for any other form of government.

You are mistaken about the sacrifices. Jewish believers continued to offer sacrifices right up until the destruction of the Temple. Even Paul was ready to offer a sacrifice in Acts 21, except that he was interrupted by being arrested. A sin offering can be seen as a MEMORIAL of Christ's one and only sacrifice, just as those before His death were done in anticipation of His sacrifice.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well, what does it say, then. Here is the text. I am interested in seeing how you defend the proposition that this text does not declare an end to the Law of Moses. Please be sure to address this text and explain what you think it means. I trust you realize that a simple declaration that "it doesn't say what you think it says" is not a full answer. Obviously Paul meant to tell us something when he wrote these words. I think he means what he says - the law is no longer in force. What do you think it means?

But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

The Law teaches us what is and is not sin. Thus we know when we are sinning. Since we know we sin, we understand we stand apart from God and need forgiveness and reconcilation, for which we need help. We need a savior. This is the tutelage that Paul is talking about. Once we receive Christ, we have obviously already taken advantage of that tutelage.

 

[Meowzltov]

I will support you. I don't see anything wrong with Jewish christians wanting to obey what they can of torah as long as it isn't being done to attain salvation but out of love for God.

Thanks!

 

[Meowzltov]

Does it say "prophecies"?


The law and the prophets were until John.


JLB

Didn't John the apostle prophecy after John the Baptist? No matter which way you swing it, I think you are misunderstanding the verse. Just munch on this a while and in several months come back to me.

 

[expos4ever]

We then come to the verses placed so often on this thread. So what is Paul truly telling us? For he has already stated all men alike fail to do what they should do. If all men alike fail to act as they should, how can any man attain to what is written in verse 7?

This is one of the standard, but clearly incorrect, ways of nullifying the clear implications of Romans 2:6-7.

There really should be no doubt that when Paul says humans cannot do good, he is talking about them in their natural state, not in the state they will be in after they are renewed through Christ and the Spirit.

I do not wish to offend but this is really very obvious. Yes, there are places in Romans and elsewhere where Paul describes the futility of human beings in respect to doing good. And, yes, he might not explicitly inform us that he is limiting his treatment to non-believers.

But he clearly is - there are many texts indeed that show indeed that Paul sees the believer as energized by the Spirit and therefore able to do good.

That anyone can read Paul and think that the believer is in the state described in the first part of Romans 3 is frankly mind-boggling to me.

At the beginning of Romans 8, Paul writes this immediately after precisely the kind of treatment that shows a person who is unable to go good (all that dreary stuff in Romans 7):

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

There should be no confusion - the person in Romans 7 is indeed unable to do good. Why not? Because, to use Paul's language, they are subject to a law of sin and death.

But what is the result of belief in Jesus?

Freedom from that state!

And, of course, we can then indeed do good works, so we do not need to make Romans 2:6-7 an untrue statement. And while we are back on Romans 2:6-7, can you explain why an intelligent person like Paul would say that people will get eternal life based on good works if he, in facts, believes this cannot be accomplished. That makes no sense. It would be like me saying to a bunch of midgets "I will give $ 1000 to all those among you who can slam dunk a basketball".

Sane, honest, and clear thinking people do not make statements that they know are untrue. Yet this is precisely the position you are in - you have Paul declaring something he knows to be false.

 

[stuart lawrence]

This is one of the standard, but clearly incorrect, ways of nullifying the clear implications of Romans 2:6-7.

There really should be no doubt that when Paul says humans cannot do good, he is talking about them in their natural state, not in the state they will be in after they are renewed through Christ and the Spirit.

I do not wish to offend but this is really very obvious. Yes, there are places in Romans and elsewhere where Paul describes the futility of human beings in respect to doing good. And, yes, he might not explicitly inform us that he is limiting his treatment to non-believers.

But he clearly is - there are many texts indeed that show indeed that Paul sees the believer as energized by the Spirit and therefore able to do good.

That anyone can read Paul and think that the believer is in the state described in the first part of Romans 3 is frankly mind-boggling to me.

At the beginning of Romans 8, Paul writes this immediately after precisely the kind of treatment that shows a person who is unable to go good (all that dreary stuff in Romans 7):

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

There should be no confusion - the person in Romans 7 is indeed unable to do good. Why not? Because, to use Paul's language, they are subject to a law of sin and death.

But what is the result of belief in Jesus?

Freedom from that state!

And, of course, we can then indeed do good works, so we do not need to make Romans 2:6-7 an untrue statement. And while we are back on Romans 2:6-7, can you explain why an intelligent person like Paul would say that people will get eternal life based on good works if he, in facts, believes this cannot be accomplished. That makes no sense. It would be like me saying to a bunch of midgets "I will give $ 1000 to all those among you who can slam dunk a basketball".

Sane, honest, and clear thinking people do not make statements that they know are untrue. Yet this is precisely the position you are in - you have Paul declaring something he knows to be false.

I am afraid you seek to understand the spiritual with the academic mind. You cannot succeed this way. The bible is Holy Spirit inspired and only the Holy Spirit can lead us into the truth the bible speaks of.
I have never denied, the Christian is called to live a holy life. However, the core message of Paul as to how holy living is to be achieved you reject. If we had of progressed through romans we would see the route by which a Christian must progress to live a holy life. For Paul it is built on this:

For sin SHALL NOT be your master for you are not under law(of righteousness) but under grace Rom 6:14
You reject the Christian not being under a law of righteousness, therefore I reject your whole theology on this subject
This is why I DID NOT want to discuss anything with you until there was common ground on a righteousness apart from the law. For everything hinges on that.
By chapter three of romans Paul has showed us, no one will ever be declared righteous in God's sight by observing the law, again, you reject that as most others do in this debate. You reject it because it makes no sense to your academic mind. So you go all round the houses trying to make the verses say something other than what they do state

 

[stuart lawrence]

There should be no confusion - the person in Romans 7 is indeed unable to do good. Why not? Because, to use Paul's language, they are subject to a law of sin and death.

But what is the result of belief in Jesus?

Freedom from that state!

.

If only you could see what you are really saying here. You are right, the person in romans 7 was unable to do good. Because they were subject to a law of sin and death. Why? Because Paul was under a law of righteousness, he is speaking of his time as a Pharasee

Yes freedom by faith in Christ. But you want to keep the law of righteousness, that's the problem!!!!

 

[expos4ever]

I am afraid you seek to understand the spiritual with the academic mind. You cannot succeed this way. The bible is Holy Spirit inspired and only the Holy Spirit can lead us into the truth the bible speaks of.

This sounds very much like an attempt to evade the force of a good argument. When faced with a clear, rational argument that challenges what they believe, people sometimes give this kind of response. What, exactly, are you saying? Are you denying my claim that the "man cannot do good" passages only apply to unbelievers? Do you therefore still claim that someone who is a true believer is described in the first half of Romans 3?

I have never denied, the Christian is called to live a holy life.

I never suggested you denied this.

However, the core message of Paul as to how holy living is to be achieved you reject.

Please explain precisely how I reject anything that Paul says. It is clear that you reject Romans 2:6-7 in the sense that you have Paul say something that is untrue.

For sin SHALL NOT be your master for you are not under law(of righteousness) but under grace Rom 6:14

Exactly, therefore the believer is freed from the Romans 3 (and Romans 7) condition which clearly describe the unbeliever and is now enabled to do good and therefore enabled to pass the Romans 2:6-7 judgment based on good works.

You reject the Christian not being under a law of righteousness, therefore I reject your whole theology on this subject

This is clearly improper argument. You simply claim that Romans 10:4 says what you think it says; I have claimed it says something else and I have provided at least some argument in defence of that position.

So of course I reject a position that I believe is based on an incorrect interpretation of Romans 10:4.

This is why I DID NOT want to discuss anything with you until there was common ground on a righteousness apart from the law. For everything hinges on that.

Again, I believe you have not correctly understood what Paul is saying in Romans 10:4. If Paul were saying what you think he is saying then Romans 2:6-7 becomes false. And that is the very difficult position you are in - you have to say that Paul says something untrue in Romans 2:6-7.

By chapter three of romans Paul has showed us, no one will ever be declared righteous in God's sight by observing the law, again, you reject that as most others do in this debate.

Hold on now, Paul says that no one will be declared righteous through the Law of Moses. Romans 2:6-7 is not talking doing the works of the Law of Moses, it is talking about doing good works.

I certainly do not reject Paul's statement that no one will be declared righteous by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

But you certainly appear to reject this:

6God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Bottom Line: You have Paul saying something here in Romans 2:6-7 that is not true.

Please explain.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Again, I believe you have not correctly understood what Paul is saying in Romans 10:4. If Paul were saying what you think he is saying then Romans 2:6-7 becomes false. And that is the very difficult position you are in - you have to say that Paul says something untrue in Romans 2:6-7.


.

You see, this is what your academic mind cannot fathom. And yes, you are led by the academic mind, not by the Holy Spirit or you would see the truth.

You have to die to a law of righteousness for sin not to be your master according to Paul. He plainly states it, he couldn't write it any clearer than he does. But it makes no logical sense to you, so you reject it.


The POWER of sin is the law! 1Cor15:56

 

[expos4ever]

If only you could see what you are really saying here. You are right, the person in romans 7 was unable to do good. Because they were subject to a law of sin and death. Why? Because Paul was under a law of righteousness, he is speaking of his time as a Pharasee

I think we agree - he is speaking about his time as a non-believing Pharisee and subject to the Law of Moses.

And, as per Romans 3, non-believers indeed cannot do good.

But this is before conversion - after conversion Paul gets set free from the power of sin and can therefore do good.

Yes freedom by faith in Christ. But you want to keep the law of righteousness, that's the problem!!!!

When did I ever reject the necessity of faith in Christ? And I am not sure what you mean by "the law of righteousness". If you are talking about the Law of Moses, you must surely know I believe that was set aside 2000 years ago and, as a Gentile, it would never apply to me in the first place.

I suggest your real quarrel is with Paul; he is the one who says this:

6God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Again, I believe you have not correctly understood what Paul is saying in Romans 10:4. If Paul were saying what you think he is saying then Romans 2:6-7 becomes false. And that is the very difficult position you are in - you have to say that Paul says something untrue in Romans 2:6-7.


.

For sin shall no longer be your master,W)'> because you are not under the law,X)'> but under grace Rom 6:14