WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[expos4ever]

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul were so"

The idea that a mere quote of scripture would be detrimental to Paul or anything he wrote is a pretty far stretch.

Paul said in Gal 1:6-9 "Though WE (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different gospel - let him be accursed" --

Paul was all about sola-scriptura testing. And Paul was an inspired writer -- this does not in any way threaten Paul. I don't know how you even get there.

This is rather obvious evasion. You clearly want to sew a particular seed of doubt in the mind of the reader - why would you even post this text - with "SEE IF" in caps no less! - unless you want to sell the idea that perhaps we cannot trust everything that Paul says? Please actually address this question.

Or let me put it this way: do you believe the writings of Paul are inspired, inerrant scripture? It seems that you do not - if so, you owe it to everyone to own that position. And if, on the other hand, you do believe that Paul writes inspired, inerrant scripture, why, exactly, did you post Acts 17:11 and, in particular, why did you capitalize "to SEE IF" if, in fact, you really believe Paul writes inspired, inerrant scripture?

 

[expos4ever]

No I am not as I have repeatedly stated.

I concede I got mixed up and thought you were posting that 2 Tim 3:16 as evidence that all commandments in scripture apply at all times. But that was not why posted that version. I apologize for the mixup. But there is still a problem, I believe.

Here is the verse you posted:

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is useful for doctrine".

And, to set the context, you presented this verse as a counterargument to my claim that the Law was for Jews only.

So, how does 2 Tim 3:16 show that the Law of Moses does not apply to Jews only? It seems like you are making a very iffy argument - you seem to be saying that, according the principle of 2 Tim 3:16, we Gentiles should take the Law of Moses as guidance for us even in the present day. Well that seems to put God in a position where He cannot target any instructions to a specific person or group or limit the application of laws to a particular timeframe, since, it seems, according to your reasoning, that 2 Tim 3:16 is a mandate to apply all any and all Biblical instructions to everyone in the present.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Here is what someone posted in response to my statement that Romans 3:28-29 proves that Paul believes that the Law is for Jews only:

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Sorry this verse says no such thing. No one is justified through the law, we are justified through faith. Keeping the law is a result of faith as the last verse says. Which is why we are called to be doers of the Word and not just hearers. James 1:22

How is not beyond obvious that this response simply sidesteps an irrefutable fact, namely that these two verses prove Paul believes the Law only governs Jews:

28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

In verse 28, Paul declares that justification has nothing to do with doing the things prescribed by the Law of Moses. Then we get verse 29. The "or" at the beginning clearly shows that the rest of verse 29 will tell us what would be the case if, in fact, justification were indeed somehow achieved by doing the works of the Law. And what does Paul say would be the case in that event?

That God would only be a God of, yes, Jews. Therefore - and how is this not painfully obvious - it must be the case that Jews, to the exclusion of Gentiles, are the only ones who do the works of the Law

This ends the discussion - there is simply no counterargument unless you are going to argue for a translation error.

But, of course, this is not acceptable to some. So what is the response? In this case, it is diversion - we are told something else that is true - that we are all justified by faith, apparently in the hopes that such a claim will divert the reader's attention from another truth - that the text proves that Paul believes the Law only governs Jews.

Thanks for posting my answer again. Where is the law of Moses mentioned anywhere in this passage? Paul is contrasting the law of works from the law of faith.

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.

The Jews thought they were superior to the Gentiles which is why Paul asks the question

Romans 3:29 He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also

Romans 3:30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised (Jew) by faith and the uncircumcised (Gentile) through faith.

Paul is saying no one is justified by the works of the law- Jew or Gentile- everyone is justified through faith nothing about the law is only for the Jews

Neither Jew or Gentiles is justified by the works of the law, but through faith- faith does not void the law, but establishes it. Romans 3:31

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The words of Jesus:

Getting into a boat, Jesus crossed over the Sea of Galilee and came to His own city. 2 And they brought to Him a paralyzed man lying on a stretcher. And seeing their faith, Jesus said to the man who was paralyzed, “Take courage, [a]son; your sins are forgiven.”

Now then, what does the Law of Moses say is the means to get forgiveness? On my understanding, one goes to the temple and offers some sort of sacrifice.

How, then, is Jesus not effectively doing away with these rules about sacrifice by claiming you do not actually need to do what is prescribed by the Law?

What did all sacrifices point to?

 

[expos4ever]

Thanks for posting my answer again. Where is the law of Moses mentioned anywhere in this passage? Paul is contrasting the law of works from the law of faith.

You have, of course, conveniently omitted verse 28 in your post.

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.

The Jews thought they were superior to the Gentiles which is why Paul asks the question

Romans 3:29 He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also

Romans 3:30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised (Jew) by faith and the uncircumcised (Gentile) through faith.

Paul is saying no one is justified by the works of the law- Jew or Gentile- everyone is justified through faith nothing about the law is only for the Jews

Neither Jew or Gentiles is justified by the works of the law, but through faith- faith does not void the law, but establishes it. Romans 3:31

Here is what Paul actually writes vs your filtered version which omits verse 28:

Where then is boasting? It has been excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
30 since indeed God who will justify the [z]circumcised [aa]by faith and the [ab]uncircumcised through faith is one.
31 Do we then nullify [ac]the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law

Verse 28 refers to works of the Law - this is a reference to, of course, the Law of Moses. Did you intentionally omit this verse for this reason?

In any event, the logic of the passage does not work on your interpretation that Paul is talking about a "law of works" that is not the Law of Moses. And this is obvious. Once again you artfully avoid one truth - that Paul's argument requires us to conclude that the Law of Moses is only for Jews - by focusing on another: you say, correctly, that the Jews thought they were superior to the Gentiles.

But let's suppose that Paul is indeed making an argument that humans are justified by faith and not by "good works". You then have Paul saying this:

Where then is boasting? It has been excluded. By what kind of law? Of good works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from good works. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

The problem is the transition from verse 28 to verse 29. The "or" tells us that what follows the "or" will be a statement of what would be the case if, repeat if, we were indeed justified by good works. But if we were to be justified by good works, then how would that make God a God of Jews only? After all, earlier in the chapter he has said both Jew and Gentile are equally sinful.

So even if the verse you omitted - verse 28 - did not explicitly refer to the Law, the logic of verses 28 and 29 force us to conclude he is talking about the Law of Moses.

You are doing what you frequently do - imposing a reading on the text that does not work when you analyze the inner logic of the passage.

But prove me wrong - explain to us how the stuff after the "or" in verse 29 is a statement of what would be the case if, indeed, people in general are justified by good works.

 

[expos4ever]

What did all sacrifices point to?

When you ask "what did all the sacrifices point to?, you are clearly suggesting the cross and your implication is that the cross ended the need for sacrifices. Again, you evade the tough question by trying to divert by telling us something else that is true - in this case, that the need for sacrifice will end at the cross. But, in doing so, you artfully evade having to deal with the implications of what Jesus is saying.

I suggest it will appear obvious to readers that your refusal to answer the question as posed - and instead pose a question yourself - shows that you have no answer to the question. After all, you cannot afford to concede that Jesus broke the Law - we all know this. And yet it is pretty clear that He does indeed break the Law in the sense that he tells people that they really do not need to follow the Law after all to get forgiveness - they can come to Him for this.

So let me ask a slightly modified version of the question: Is Jesus, or is Jesus not, offering people a "forgiveness" option that "bypasses" the requirements of the Law? And is that not effectively a way of counseling others to break the Law?

 

[trophy33]

Context is important.
falsely accusing someone of taking a text out of context is easy to do.
Proving that there is a correction in context is more difficult but is required once you make such an accusation.

Proved many times already. We do not start with a new clean paper every morning, go back in history.

The SDA's theology did not miraculously start to work today, when it did not work "yesterday".

Even your signature was proven to be wrong, but you still have it - the vast majority of Christian denomination believe that a physical observance of Sabbath has ended with Christ.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You have, of course, conveniently omitted verse 28 in your post.

Here is what Paul actually writes vs your filtered version which omits verse 28:

Where then is boasting? It has been excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
30 since indeed God who will justify the [z]circumcised [aa]by faith and the [ab]uncircumcised through faith is one.
31 Do we then nullify [ac]the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law

Verse 28 refers to works of the Law - this is a reference to, of course, the Law of Moses. Did you intentionally omit this verse for this reason?

In any event, the logic of the passage does not work on your interpretation that Paul is talking about a "law of works" that is not the Law of Moses. And this is obvious. Once again you artfully avoid one truth - that Paul's argument requires us to conclude that the Law of Moses is only for Jews - by focusing on another: you say, correctly, that the Jews thought they were superior to the Gentiles.

But let's suppose that Paul is indeed making an argument that humans are justified by faith and not by "good works". You then have Paul saying this:

Where then is boasting? It has been excluded. By what kind of law? Of good works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from good works. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

The problem is the transition from verse 28 to verse 29. The "or" tells us that what follows the "or" will be a statement of what would be the case if, repeat if, we were indeed justified by good works. But if we were to be justified by good works, then how would that make God a God of Jews only? After all, earlier in the chapter he has said both Jew and Gentile are equally sinful.

So even if the verse you omitted - verse 28 - did not explicitly refer to the Law, the logic of verses 28 and 29 force us to conclude he is talking about the Law of Moses.

You are doing what you frequently do - imposing a reading on the text that does not work when you analyze the inner logic of the passage.

But prove me wrong - explain to us how the stuff after the "or" in verse 29 is a statement of what would be the case if, indeed, people in general are justified by good works.

I wasn’t leaving out “the law of works” as it was in the very first line of my post… I even bolded it.


Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.

Verse 28 does not say the law is only for the Jews, you are reading that into scripture much like you read the law of works is the law of Moses. The law of Moses has many different laws and unless you consider love God and love neighbor to be the law of works, you have a great misunderstanding of this passage. No one can work their way in heaven through any law, it’s all through faith. The law is kept as a result of faith, not to be saved. A saved person lives differently than an unsaved person

Here is verse Romans 3:28 .Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The man here is both Jew and Gentile as the rest of the context shows us previously explained and the whole point is that NO ONE no man, no Jew or Gentile is justified by the law of works but by the law of faith. No one is saved by works everyone is saved by faith in Jesus through His grace. Faith however does not void the law, but establishes it (upholds) Romans 3:31

You’re free to believe what you want, but this passage is straightforward if we allow the scripture to interpret itself.

Here’s one for you about the law of Moses…

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

 

[SabbathBlessings]

When you ask "what did all the sacrifices point to?, you are clearly suggesting the cross and your implication is that the cross ended the need for sacrifices. Again, you evade the tough question by trying to divert by telling us something else that is true - in this case, that the need for sacrifice will end at the cross. But, in doing so, you artfully evade having to deal with the implications of what Jesus is saying.

I suggest it will appear obvious to readers that your refusal to answer the question as posed - and instead pose a question yourself - shows that you have no answer to the question. After all, you cannot afford to concede that Jesus broke the Law - we all know this. And yet it is pretty clear that He does indeed break the Law in the sense that he tells people that they really do not need to follow the Law after all to get forgiveness - they can come to Him for this.

So let me ask a slightly modified version of the question: Is Jesus, or is Jesus not, offering people a "forgiveness" option that "bypasses" the requirements of the Law? And is that not effectively a way of counseling others to break the Law?

No, sacrifices did not point to the cross, they point to Jesus. Sacrifices ended at the cross because Jesus became our sacrifice Lamb for the forgiveness of sin (breaking the law) when we have a change of heart and repent and turn to Jesus and walk in His Spirit in obedience to Him. John 14:15-18, Romans 8:4-9

 

[BobRyan]

Proved many times already. We do not start with a new clean paper every morning, go back in history.

No doubt - but false accusations are funny in that they need actual facts to become true ones.

The SDA's theology did not miraculously start to work today,

True. But this thread is not titled "SDA theology" and even if you wanted to attack it - you would need actual facts.

Even your signature was proven to be wrong, but you still have it

Because to prove something wrong - you need an actual fact.

I don't see how this is the hard part.

- the vast majority of Christian denomination believe that a physical observance of Sabbath has ended with Christ.

My signature line does not say that the majority of Christian denominations do not edit the Sabbath. I say that they include the Sabbath - the 4th commandment in the TEN. And even you know you cannot get to TEN without FOUR.

Those false accusations are made out of the abundance of what you do not know. But no matter - I am always happy to share actual facts.

===================

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS text by D. L. Moody​

​

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

BY DWIGHT L. MOODY​

​

"THERE HAS BEEN an awful letting-down in this country regarding the Sabbath during the last twenty-five years, and many a man has been shorn of spiritual power, like Samson, because he is not straight on this question. Can you say that you observe the Sabbath properly? You may be a professed Christian: are you obeying this commandment? Or do you neglect the house of God on the Sabbath day, and spend your time drinking and carousing in places of vice and crime, showing contempt for God and His law? Are you ready to step into the scales? Where were you last Sabbath? How did you spend it?

"I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.​

​

"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) ​

​

"It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.​

"The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?​

​

HOW TO OBSERVE THE SABBATH​

​

"Sabbath" means "rest," and the meaning of the word gives a hint as to the true way to observe the day. God rested after creation, and ordained the Sabbath as a rest for man. He blessed it and hallowed it. Remember the rest-day to keep it holy. It is the day when the body may be refreshed and strengthened after six days of labor, and the soul drawn into closer fellowship with its Maker.

"True observance of the Sabbath may be considered under two general heads:​

​

1. cessation from ordinary secular work, and
2. religious exercises.

 

[BobRyan]

What did all sacrifices point to?

Christ's sacrifice on the cross - they were shadow sabbaths as Heb 10:4-12 points out regarding those "Sacrifices and offerings".

A direct and obvious question - gets a direct and obvious answer.

I like it that way.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is what someone posted in response to my statement that Romans 3:28-29 proves that Paul believes that the Law is for Jews only:

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Sorry this verse says no such thing

That quote take a direct quote of Rom 3 and adds "this law says no such thing"

. No one is justified through the law, we are justified through faith. Keeping the law is a result of faith as the last verse says. Which is why we are called to be doers of the Word and not just hearers. James 1:22

How is not beyond obvious that this response simply sidesteps an irrefutable fact, namely that these two verses prove Paul believes the Law only governs Jews:

28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

I only proves thaat "justified by works of the law" was a concept the Jews had but the gentiles did not. the massive inference used to insist that it was only a sin for Jews to take God's name in vain since the law only applies to Jews - is beyond reason.

 

[expos4ever]

I wasn’t leaving out “the law of works” as it was in the very first line of my post…

There is a subtle distinction that matters. Yes, you included the phrase "law of works", but you omitted verse 28 which has "works of the Law".

It is at least plausible to argue, as you have, that "law of works" refers to a general principle of good works that has nothing to do with the Law of Moses.

But, of course, it is pretty obvious that reference to "works of the Law" is a reference to the Law of Moses.

That, I suggest, is why you omitted verse 28.

Verse 28 does not say the law is only for the Jews, you are reading that into scripture much like you read the law of works is the law of Moses.

Strawman - I never said this! You guys have a documented pattern of misrepresentation and deception in these threads. How can you not possibly know that my position is that "works of the law" in verse 28 is a reference to the Law of Moses precisely because of the logical relationship between verse 28 and 29. You know that this is the my argument - it has been clearly explained.

So why are you trying to trick readers into thinking I am saying something else?

The law of Moses has many different laws and unless you consider love God and love neighbor to be the law of works, you have a great misunderstanding of this passage.

This is an unclear statement and is almost certainly irrelevant. Let's be clear about what is going on here. You cannot possibly not know that the logical relationship between verse 28 and 29 forces us to conclude that Paul sees the Law as applicable to only Jews. But you cannot accept this, so you engage in a pattern of diversion - you tell us all sorts of other things that one can conclude from the passage that are indeed true in the hopes that your evasion of my argument will get lost in the fray.

Here is verse Romans 3:28 .Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
The man here is both Jew and Gentile as the rest of the context shows us previously explained and the whole point is that NO ONE no man, no Jew or Gentile is justified by the law of works but by the law of faith. No one is saved by works everyone is saved by faith in Jesus through His grace. Faith however does not void the law, but establishes it (upholds) Romans 3:31

A perfect example of your diversionary tactics. Yes, we all know that the man in verse 28 is both a Jew and a Gentile. But that is not the point. You cannot afford to actually engage the argument about how verses 28 and 29 as a unit force us to conclude that Paul believes that the Law is for Jews only, so you artfully steer away from that uncomfortable fact and tell us something else that is true - in this case that neither Jew not Gentile is justified by works of the Law. We all know this - it is not the point.

You have to know that to say that the statement "neither Jew nor Gentile is justified by works of the Law" does not require us to believe that both are subject to the Law, yet this appears to be what you are trying to sell.

Suppose I were to write these words: For we maintain that no one's worth as a person has anything to with having a beard. Or are only men worthy. Are not women worthy too? Yes they are

Do you see the point? You can sure others will. The fact the first sentence declares that the worth of all people is not connected to having a beard does not logically necessitate that we deny the obvious fact that only men can grow beards!

 

[BobRyan]

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is useful for doctrine".

A very weak argument. You are effectively asking readers to believe that all commandments throughout scripture apply in the present

No I am not as I have repeatedly stated.

we see this in my signature line

Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today
[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul


In section 19 of the baptist confession of faith they freely point out that animal-sacrifice ceremonial laws end at the cross just as I point out in my references to Heb 10:4-12

In Heb 7 the earthly priesthood ends at the cross.

Even the Baptist Confession of Faith section 19 notes that the civil laws of the nation-theocracy end when that theocracy ended.

I concede I got mixed up and thought you were posting that 2 Tim 3:16 as evidence that all commandments in scripture apply at all times. But that was not why posted that version. I apologize for the mixup. But there is still a problem, I believe.

Here is the verse you posted:

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is useful for doctrine".

I quoted it -- I did not author it. God did.
I merely show that the NT writers considered the OT authoritative.

And, to set the context, you presented this verse as a counterargument to my claim that the Law was for Jews only.

True. And it would be impossible for the gentiles in the synagogues in Acts 13, Acts 17 and Acts 18 not to know about the scriptures and the fact that they contained the commandments of God.

The point remains.

So, how does 2 Tim 3:16 show that the Law of Moses does not apply to Jews only?

err... umm.. because we don't use your extreme inference in 2 Tim 3 and we can read context in Rom 3.

Rom 3:19-20
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

No wonder almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Christ's sacrifice on the cross - they were shadow sabbaths as Heb 10:4-12 points out regarding those "Sacrifices and offerings".

A direct and obvious question - gets a direct and obvious answer.

I like it that way.

I thought all sacrifices point to Jesus but were ratified at the cross. I am happy to be corrected.

 

[expos4ever]

I want to try to pin people down on Romans 3:28-29 as unit as I believe there is an irrefutable fact here that is being danced away from.

Consider this very abstract, general statement:

We maintain that a person's justification has nothing to do with engaging in behaviour X; or is justification only for group A? Is not justification also available to group B as well? Yes, justification is available to both groups A and B.

It is an undeniable fact of logic that this block of text, as unit, logically forces us to conclude that only group A is able to engage in behaviour X.

End of discussion - how can anyone deny this? If it were the case that group B could engage in behaviour X, then justification would indeed be available to them and there would be no need to even raise the connection between justification and engaging in behaviour X in the first place! This should be obvious, but in case it is not, consider this version:

We maintain that a person's justification has nothing to do with having a brain; or is justification only for women? Is not justification also available to men as well? Yes, justification is available to both men and women.

All jokes aside about men not having brains, these sentences clearly do not makes sense as a unit. Since both women and men have brains, why would anyone then add the second sentence which clearly implies that men do not have brains!

Now getting back to the actual text of Romans 3:27-31: what strategies would be available to a person who knows that the logic of verses 28 and 29 force us to conclude that Paul believes only Jews are subject to the Law but who cannot accept this? One would be to divert - to tell us other true things that we can conclude from this passage in the hopes that we will not notice that they have not dealt with the implications of verses 28 and 29 in respect to who is under the law.

And we are seeing precisely this diversionary strategy in this thread.

 

[Leaf473]

No.

Heb 10:4-12 says that law ended at the cross.

1 Cor 5 "Christ our PASSOVER has been sacrificed".

There is no "by believing in Jesus you sacrifice a lamb each passover".
Heb 10 says "he takes AWAY the first to establish the second"

Playing fast and loose with the text is not as helpful as one might suppose at first.

Here's how I see it:

When we agree that the law of Moses is holy, just, and true, and that we are sinners, and that only Jesus can save us from that sin by his death and resurrection,
then we are establishing the law.

I shortened that to "by believing in Jesus".

When Hebrews says, "he takes away the first", it doesn't mean that those words in the law of Moses have disappeared. They are all still right there, and useful for understanding God's ways and character.

It means we don't have to do the the physical practices in the law of Moses anymore.

 

[BobRyan]

Here's how I see it:

When we agree that the law of Moses is holy, just, and true, and that we are sinners, and that only Jesus can save us from that sin by his death and resurrection,
then we are establishing the law.

Here is how I see it

Under the New Covenant the LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers is "written on the heart" Jer 31:31-34

And that is how we "establish the Law" as even Paul notes in Heb 8:6-12

Instead of extreme inference and creative writing -- the text just says it for us.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You have, of course, conveniently omitted verse 28 in your post.

Here is what Paul actually writes vs your filtered version which omits verse 28:

Where then is boasting? It has been excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
30 since indeed God who will justify the [z]circumcised [aa]by faith and the [ab]uncircumcised through faith is one.
31 Do we then nullify [ac]the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law

Verse 28 refers to works of the Law - this is a reference to, of course, the Law of Moses. Did you intentionally omit this verse for this reason?

In any event, the logic of the passage does not work on your interpretation that Paul is talking about a "law of works" that is not the Law of Moses. And this is obvious. Once again you artfully avoid one truth - that Paul's argument requires us to conclude that the Law of Moses is only for Jews - by focusing on another: you say, correctly, that the Jews thought they were superior to the Gentiles.

But let's suppose that Paul is indeed making an argument that humans are justified by faith and not by "good works". You then have Paul saying this:

Where then is boasting? It has been excluded. By what kind of law? Of good works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from good works. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

The problem is the transition from verse 28 to verse 29. The "or" tells us that what follows the "or" will be a statement of what would be the case if, repeat if, we were indeed justified by good works. But if we were to be justified by good works, then how would that make God a God of Jews only? After all, earlier in the chapter he has said both Jew and Gentile are equally sinful.

So even if the verse you omitted - verse 28 - did not explicitly refer to the Law, the logic of verses 28 and 29 force us to conclude he is talking about the Law of Moses.

You are doing what you frequently do - imposing a reading on the text that does not work when you analyze the inner logic of the passage.

But prove me wrong - explain to us how the stuff after the "or" in verse 29 is a statement of what would be the case if, indeed, people in general are justified by good works.

I think you are making a whole doctrine from the word "or". No one is justified by works of the law or the law of works, not Jew or Gentile- all is justified by faith. Good works is a result of faith and those with faith produce good works since that is what God created us to do. Ephesians 2:10

This whole doctrine you are trying to create that Gentiles do not have the law, but Jews do, it's not one from scripture.

If one is in Christ, they are grafted in through faith. There is no Jew or Gentile just one people through faith. Gal 3:26-29
Does faith void the law? Certainly NOT! It establishes it. Romans 3:31

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

God's people keep God's commandments and the saints and those who believe and do what God asks will not just be Jews. Revelation 14:12, Revelation 22:14

 

[BobRyan]

I want to try to pin people down on Romans 3:28-29 as unit as I believe there is an irrefutable fact here that is being danced away from.

In Context - God's Law applies to 'all the world' -- "Everyone with a mouth" -- according to Paul in Rom 3.

Rom 3:19-20
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Paul calls this - "the commandments of God" - "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19