Works Relation to Salvation

[HIM]

That I am.

I am glad I was worried.

 

[Gary K]

I am glad I was worried.

Why? I got booted for calling Adventist Heretic a liar for the distortions he was presenting about Ellen White. The mod who booted me seems to have had a change of heart though as I was to be banned until late November.

 

[HIM]

Why? I got booted for calling Adventist Heretic a liar for the distortions he was presenting about Ellen White. The mod who booted me seems to have had a change of heart though as I was to be banned until late November.

Because I thought something happened to you. Or you got fed up with the drama and left.

 

[Gary K]

Because I thought something happened to you. Or you got fed up with the drama and left.

I appreciate you caring enough to think of me.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

That scripture does not mean that those who love God and His law and obey it by faith are cursed if they fail of keeping it perfectly. There is a huge difference between that and attempting to obey it because a person thinks they can earn salvation by doing so.

Well, Peter wasn't trying to earn his salvation when he separated himself from the gentiles (Gal 2:11-12), Barnabas was not trying to earn his salvation when he was carried away by their hipocricy (Gal 2:13), Paul wasn't trying to resist earning his salvation when he was not swayed by the spies secretly brought in to spie out their liberty (Gal 2:4-5), and Paul was not telling the Galatian Christians they could not earn their salvation when he said,

2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?—3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? (Ga 3:2–4)​

Per verse 3 and 4, seeking to mature one's faith by the fleshly activity of legalism causes doubt to be cast on one's salvation.

Notice that the fruit of the Spirit includes love and faith.

Notice that being at one with the Spirit of the living God is not a result of "walking", but it is a prerequisite. And also notice that "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." (Ga 5:18) It doesn't say, "If you walk in the Spirit, you are not under the law". It says that if your are being led around by the Spirit, you are not under the law. This is very similar to Romans 8:14 -- "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." Sonship (or we may say reconciliation, or rightness with God, or salvation, or eternal life, or justification, or pleasing God, or any number of words describing our right relationship with God) is the result of being made truly holy and righteous in the inner man as a result of the Spirit of God coming to live in our hearts. To continually submit the flesh to God's laws in an attempt to reform it is to deny that we are laready right with Him. There is no way to reform the flesh or make it conform to God's laws. The only way to avoid the fruits of the flesh is to walk in the Spirit.

 

[Icyspark]

Cool again

In Matthew 5 we learn that no part of the law will pass away until heaven and Earth pass away or all is accomplished.

Hebrews tells us that sacrifices have ceased, so at least some parts of the law have passed away.

If the law is a whole, indivisible, then if one part passes away, the whole passes away.

So that's the reasoning, at least my reasoning. Again, were you able to follow it?

And if you were able to follow it, would you like to pick a particular step and say whether you agree or disagree?

Hi Leaf473,

Ok, I think I'm following along and that's an interesting attempt to bring your belief in alignment with Scripture. That said, I believe the premise is incorrect.

Earlier on this thread @Bob S made the claim that "SDAs are masters at segregating laws."

To which I replied:

You know Who else is a Master at "segregating laws"? Oh, that's right, Jesus ​

​

Deuteronomy 5:31​

But you stay here with me so that I may give you all the commands, decrees and laws you are to teach them to follow in the land I am giving them to possess.”​

In Deuteronomy 11:1 we see it segregated a bit more: "Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always."

The point here is that the law is isolated from the requirements (i.e. statutes) and decrees, which I believe contain the sacrifices. I believe the Ten Commandments are also identified as law, but the numeral attached to these commandments constrains this unit to only ten. Thus there is no contradiction in the New Testament when it affirms the law in the present tense as being "holy, righteous and good." Paul continues this thought and says it is by this law that sin is recognized as sin (see Romans 7:13). So if there is no longer any law, then you have no ability to recognize sin.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

It does indeed deserve close scrutiny. What "LAW" was the Pharisees promoting for "Justification"? In other words, in the Law and Prophets, when a man sinned, what did Moses tell this man to do before his sin could be forgiven?

You have already rejected my answer to this. I'll just give you this answer:

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” (Ga 3:10–12, Deut 27:26)​

Paul directly quotes Deuteronomy 27:26 from the Septuigant when he says those who place themselves under the law are under the curse. And "the law" referenced in Deut 27:26 is the law of God given to the Israelites which was anchored by the 10 commandments and was codified on the same day that God made the second copy of the 10 Commandments.

It would be great if you would post Moses own words which answer this question.

See above. Start reading at Deut 10:1 (hew two tablets) and read all the way through Deut 27:26 (cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in this law) and you can see Moses' own words.

Is this LAW a "Law of Works" as Paul asked in Romans 3? Or a LAW of Faith?

Do you not know this verse: "Yet the law is not of faith, but 'the man who does them shall live by them.'" (Ga 3:12) If a person obeys the law, then he earns the rewards of obedience, but if a person does not obey the law but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (Ro 4:5-8). See the difference? One person works and earns what he gets, the other does not work for what he gets. That's the differnce between faith and works.

And this is precicely the meaning of Romans 3:27 -- "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith." Boasting is not available to those who's right standing with God is through the forgiveness of their sins. They did not earn it by their obedience. They earned it by placing their trust in the God who forgives all failures to obey. The "law of faith" is the law that says all your sins will be forgiven if you place your trust in the Christ who died for your sins and rose from the dead.

It is sneaky cruel to twist faith into a pretzel to justify works.

It is written that the Jesus of the Bible, never sinned. It would be great if you would answer another question. Did Jesus promote these same "works of the Law" in order to be forgiven? Or did HE promote a LAW in which HE, apart from these sacrificial "works", for gave sins?

I don't understand the question, but I'd just say that Jesus is the spotless lamb that was sacrificed for our sins and by His one sacrifice He perfected forever those whome He sanctified.

I think it's great that you understand the importance of close scrutiny of what Paul is teaching. We wouldn't want to be enticed into adopting a religion which promote doctrines and traditions of men, that cause us to Transgress God's commandments, like the mainstream religion of Jesus' Time did. Even if they do "Come in Christ's Name".

Interesting. I didn't say I come in Christ's name. But I have no doubt He sent me.

 

[Bob S]

Hi Leaf473,

Ok, I think I'm following along and that's an interesting attempt to bring your belief in alignment with Scripture. That said, I believe the premise is incorrect.

Earlier on this thread @Bob S made the claim that "SDAs are masters at segregating laws."

To which I replied:

You know Who else is a Master at "segregating laws"? Oh, that's right, Jesus ​

​

Deuteronomy 5:31​

But you stay here with me so that I may give you all the commands, decrees and laws you are to teach them to follow in the land I am giving them to possess.”​

In Deuteronomy 11:1 we see it segregated a bit more: "Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always."

The point here is that the law is isolated from the requirements (i.e. statutes) and decrees, which I believe contain the sacrifices. I believe the Ten Commandments are also identified as law, but the numeral attached to these commandments constrains this unit to only ten. Thus there is no contradiction in the New Testament when it affirms the law in the present tense as being "holy, righteous and good." Paul continues this thought and says it is by this law that sin is recognized as sin (see Romans 7:13). So if there is no longer any law, then you have no ability to recognize sin.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Jesus came to fulfill the Law. He didn't indicate it was just part of the Law. He didn't even allow one jot to be removed from all of the Law until all of it was fulfilled. As said Jesus came to fulfill it. Now the question is did He indeed do what He said He was going to do or are Jews still under all of the laws given at Sinai? Yes, I mean the laws on stone and the ones written in the Book of the Law. The Jews tell us that there were many more laws than the ten that SDAs claim all mankind are subject. It would seem Jews would know more about the laws given to them by God than Gentiles would.

Now it is imperative to know that God only gave the Law to one nation, Israel. God never required any other nation to keep any of the ceremonial laws that Israel was required to observe. The big question becomes when did God begin to require all mankind to observe any of the ceremonial laws of the Sinai covenant? I, personally, cannot find one word in all of scripture that has ever required any other nation to observe the ceremonial weekly Sabbath or any of the other ceremonies. Why then would the SDA church and I suppose other Saturday observing churches tell me I will not be found in Heaven because I do not observe a day that God has never required me to observe?

Paul tells us in 2Cor3: 6-11 that even the Jews are not under the guidance of the ten commandments. The Holy Spirit became the guide to all mankind at Pentecost.. If we depend on Him for guidance we surely will not go wrong. 1Jn 3:19-24 tells us we belong to the truth if believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

 

[Soyeong]

Jesus came to fulfill the Law. He didn't indicate it was just part of the Law. He didn't even allow one jot to be removed from all of the Law until all of it was fulfilled. As said Jesus came to fulfill it. Now the question is did He indeed do what He said He was going to do or are Jews still under all of the laws given at Sinai? Yes, I mean the laws on stone and the ones written in the Book of the Law. The Jews tell us that there were many more laws than the ten that SDAs claim all mankind are subject. It would seem Jews would know more about the laws given to them by God than Gentiles would.

Now it is imperative to know that God only gave the Law to one nation, Israel. God never required any other nation to keep any of the ceremonial laws that Israel was required to observe. The big question becomes when did God begin to require all mankind to observe any of the ceremonial laws of the Sinai covenant? I, personally, cannot find one word in all of scripture that has ever required any other nation to observe the ceremonial weekly Sabbath or any of the other ceremonies. Why then would the SDA church and I suppose other Saturday observing churches tell me I will not be found in Heaven because I do not observe a day that God has never required me to observe?

Paul tells us in 2Cor3: 6-11 that even the Jews are not under the guidance of the ten commandments. The Holy Spirit became the guide to all mankind at Pentecost.. If we depend on Him for guidance we surely will not go wrong. 1Jn 3:19-24 tells us we belong to the truth if believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in His law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo). After Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5:17-20, he then proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it as it should be. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so it again is referring to correctly obeying it as it should be, and it refers to something that countless people have done, not to causing us to no longer be under it. Likewise, in Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, which refers to correctly obeying it, which is something that anyone can do, and it does not refer to causing us to no longer be under it. In addition, other Jewish writings speaking about how to fulfill the law in the sense of how to correctly obey it, not in the sense of causing them to no longer be under it.

While God gave the law to the nations of Israel, God gave it to Israel to the purpose of equipping them for the role of being a light and a blessing to the nations by teaching the nations to obey it in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel. The Bible never lists which laws are part of the ceremonial law and never even refers to that as being a category of law. In 2 Corinthians 3:6-11, it does not tell us that we are not under God's law, but rather in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it. In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth and the way to belong to the truth is not by rejecting it. Likewise, the the way to believe in God's word made flesh is not by refusing to obey God's word, but just the opposite.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Yes, sadly people seem to not reconcile these scriptures and while it sounds good that we can choose what it means to walk in Christ instead of following the scriptures, but its always best to allow the scriptures to interpret itself.

This seems to be a verse that is overlooked a lot...

Romans 7:7 Because the carnal mind (sinful) is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

Well, I thought I addressed it. I'll try again.

If a person wants to know where his/her sins come from, they need only look to their flesh. The flesh is in adversarial opposition to God, it is not subject to the law of God, and it is impossible for it to be made to conform. The reason I pointed you to Romans 8:10 ("And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness") and Galatians 5:17 ("For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish") was to help you recognize that your flesh (which is in aversarial opposition to God) exists in you alongside your redeemed spirit. The reason I referenced Galatians 5:16 ("I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh") was to show you that the only way to avoid fulfilling the lusts of the flesh is to learn to walk in lock step with the Spirit.

The conclusion is walking in His Spirit is in harmony with keeping His commandments, and in doing so there is no condemnation. I mean how can anyone argue with Jesus in His very own Words John 14:15 Exo 20:6

Actually, "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." (Ga 5:18) And, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." (Ro 8:2) The lack of condemnation does not come from walking in the Spirit, otherwise walking in the Spirit would just be another euphamism for obeying the law (i.e., there is no condemnation for those who obey the law).

As I have stated a few times, God's commandments just make us aware of sin as Paul previously stated...

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

I agree with this.

What is the condemnation of sin? It is death Romans 6:23. What this passage in Romans 8 is telling us there is no condemnation if we are not sinning (not an enmity or hostile against God's law )

Under this theory, since condemnation is only avoided when you do not sin, condemnation returns to you when you commit a sin. And since we all sin every day, condemnation returns to us all every day. So, how does this theory of freedom from condemnation do us any good?

because we have been transformed by Jesus living in His Spirit, overcome through Him and being obedient to Him, not because we have to because we want to through love and faith Romans 3:31 1 John 5:3, John 14:15, Exo 20:6.

Where does our sin come from if it doesn't come from the flesh? Concerning your desire to to be obedient, have you ever considered 1 Co 10:13 ("No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.") Every time you give into temptation it is because you decide to not take the way out that God provided.

If we find ourselves hostile to God's law, that's not a good sign the law just shows us we are sinners and our need for Jesus who gives us the solution to the sin problem.

If we find ourselves to be sinners while we seek to be justified by Christ (Gal 2:17), does that mean we are lost?

The law is not the problem, the law is holy and righteous Psa 119:172 Romans 7:12 NIV sin is the issue and what we do with the problem (sin, not the law) depends on who we serve. Our obedience to God leads to righteousness, our obedience to sin leads to death

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

This is obviously the difference between the righteousness of the alive spirit and the depravity of the dead sinful flesh as explicitly defined in Romans 8:10. Not understanding the flesh/spirit model of man presented in Scripture and lived out by every person in whom Christ lives is the reason for the misunderstanding.

Of course I see this, but many want to use their version of what sin is instead of God's. Sin is the transgression of God's law 1 John 3:4 and the law that points out sin is the 10 commandments Romans 7:7 Mat 5:19-30 God's holy law and what we will be judged by James 2:10-12 Mat 5:19-30. God's righteousness (right doing) is through His commandments Psa 119:172 and what too many people do is depend on their version of righteousness instead of God's but this is really just another deceitful doctrine that we can sanctity ourselves, but we can't, we need to depend on God and His righteousness.

Nothing wrong with that in my view.

Do you think Jesus has enough power to keep us from sin? I asked this before but never really received a response.

Yes, the new man is created according to God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph 4:24). That is where our sinlessness exists. It is not in the flesh, which cannot be conformed to God's will. We cannot change what the flesh wants, but if we want to deny the flesh what it wants, then we must put on the new man and walk in lock step with the Spirit. If we fail to do so, and fulfil the lusts of the flesh, we have an advocate with the Father (1 Jn 2:1) and do not suffer His condemnation).

Do you think we can walk in Christ and be sinning and thats serving and loving Christ with all our heart, mind and soul?

No, if we walk in the Spirit, then we do not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. If we don't walk in the Spirit, there is no way to avoid fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. Do you not see that these choices exist?

Not according to Jesus very own Words... Jesus in His own Words says He doesn't know us if we do not do the will of God and practice lawlessness

Apparently you just ignore your own daily sins and the reasons behind your daily choices to not take the way of escape God provides for every temptation.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

How are we known to Christ?

1 John 2: 3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.

Love to Him we should want to keep His commandments. Receiving His Spirit is conditional.

Hmmm. Does He go away when you choose to indulge the flesh, then come back when you repent? And does this happen multiple times every day or every week? Not a good theory.

John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

If we are keeping His commandments, we are not sinning. Jesus doesn't make us do it alone either, but it requires our cooperation.

You seem to be arguing with the very Words of Jesus. What is your solution to the sin problem when someone slips and falls,

The heavenly Father corrects all His children whom He loves (Heb 12:5-11).

not repent- to live in perpetual sin where we are told there remains no more sacrifice for sin Hebrews 10:26-30 does not seem like a good solution. Jesus became our Sacrifice for sin, but not only for sin, when we turn from sin and repent, but turn to Him for sanctification and through His power we can overcome sin. You seem to not believe this for some reason, but its a promise of scripture


Mat 4:4 From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Mat 9:13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Mark 6:12 So they went out and preached that people should repent.

When we have a heavy and humble heart knowing our sin hurts our Savior and sin separates us from God Jesus Sacrificed Himself so we can turn to Him and have confidence in His promise that He can cleanse us from all sin and unrighteousness

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

And our faithfulness and obedience to His commandments will lead us to reconciliation

Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

God does have a people who overcome....

Rev 22:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.


The curse of the law is not continuing in obedience- the wages of sin is death - we are told this over and over again in scripture. The law is not a curse, but deviating off the path of God's righteousness is.

See answer above.

So let me try to understand you, we do not need to obey God's law and Christ will accept us through faith and faith means we can worship other gods, vain God's holy name covet and steal
or
should we follow what the scripture tells us that faith upholds the law Romans 3:31 and grace is not a license to sin (break God's law) Certainly Not!! according to Paul Romans 6:1-2 but living in faith and grace actually means being obedient to God's law.

I do not embrace either of these alternatives. I have tried to show you the relationship between liberty, license, and legalism (Gal 5:1-5), but to no avail.

I am sorry you seem to have such a low opinion of God's law and His righteousness. According to scripture God's law is perfect for converting the soul Psalms 19:7 so whoever is telling you that we should not submit to God's law is teaching you away from the scripture away from reconciliation with God Rev 22:14-15

The red underlined part of your statement above is the key to understanding. We do not submit to God's law to earn righteousness through obedience (doing so would place us under the curse), but God's laws are written in our hearts when He comes to live inside us (causing us to have delight in God and the things of God).

You seem to misunderstand what it means to not be under the law. What it does not mean is that we can just choose to bypass it and depend on our own version of righteousness and be saved. These scriptures Rev 22:14-15 1 John 2:1-6 Mat 7:21-23 Hebrews 10:26-30 answers this plainly. If you go back to Romans 8:1-8 there is no condemnation if one is walking in Christ walking in the Spirit and not walking in the flesh (sin) those walking in the flesh is an enmity against God and His law Romans 8:7 but there is no condemnation is we keep God's law though love and faith. 1 John 5:3, Romans 3:31. The Spirit is given to those who obey Acts 5:32

We can't become a new creation if we are walking in the flesh (sin) and there is no condemnation if we are obeying God and keeping His commandments through love and faith which Paul says keeping the commandments of God, is what matters 1 Cor 7:19 its the whole duty of man. Ecc 12:13

I have addressed these concepts already.

 

[Bob S]

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in His law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo).

Sorry Soy, your explanation is not congruent to Jesus statement that not one jot would pass from the Law until all is fulfilled and it does not in any way relate to the remainder of the sentence "and the prophets". Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophesies about His coming, meaning He brought to an end those prophesies. Fulfilling the Law meant He brought them to an end. That is the only explanation that fits the remainder of His thought.

After Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5:17-20, he then proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it as it should be.

Absolutely, the Law was still in effect until the new covenant was ratified by Jesus on the Cross where He ratified it with His own blood.

According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so it again is referring to correctly obeying it as it should be, and it refers to something that countless people have done, not to causing us to no longer be under it.

Gentiles were never under the Law, but if we love our fellow man as Jesus taught in Jn15:9-14 we have fulfilled everything He taught.

Likewise, in Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, which refers to correctly obeying it, which is something that anyone can do, and it does not refer to causing us to no longer be under it. In addition, other Jewish writings speaking about how to fulfill the law in the sense of how to correctly obey it, not in the sense of causing them to no longer be under it.

When did Gentiles become "under the Law"? It is the Jews that are no longer under the Law. Gentiles never were under the Sinai covenant, so what you believe does not make any sense to me.

While God gave the law to the nations of Israel, God gave it to Israel to the purpose of equipping them for the role of being a light and a blessing to the nations by teaching the nations to obey it in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel.

The Law is not the Gospel Soy. Why would God want the Jews to spread the weekly Sabbath law and all the other special Sabbaths relating to only those who came out of bondage? That does not make any sense now does it? Why would any other nation want to celebrate the fourth of July?

The Bible never lists which laws are part of the ceremonial law and never even refers to that as being a category of law.

That , in no way, means we are not able to discern which laws dealt with morality toward their fellow man and the laws that dealt with ceremonies. Your reasoning is a copout and does not apply.

In 2 Corinthians 3:6-11, it does not tell us that we are not under God's law,

It tells us Jews are not under the ten commandments. Why are you so opposed to believing what the verses are telling us? Gentiles were never under the ten commandments , so that doesn't even apply to us.

but rather in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it.

In the New Testament the Holy Spirit is leading us to obey Jesus commands. In Jn 15:10-14 Jesus told us He kept the Sinai Covenant that His Father gave to Israel and He asks us to keep His commandments which is love to God and love to our fellow man.

In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth and the way to belong to the truth is not by rejecting it. Likewise, the the way to believe in God's word made flesh is not by refusing to obey God's word, but just the opposite.

Sure God's Laws given to only the nation of Israel were truth and Israelites were not to reject even on jot or tittle of it. Gentile nations were never required by God to observe the Sinai Covenant.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

If a person wants to know where his/her sins come from, they need only look to their flesh. The flesh is in adversarial opposition to God, it is not subject to the law of God, and it is impossible for it to be made to conform. The reason I pointed you to Romans 8:10 ("And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness") and Galatians 5:17 ("For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish") was to help you recognize that your flesh (which is in aversarial opposition to God) exists in you alongside your redeemed spirit. The reason I referenced Galatians 5:16 ("I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh") was to show you that the only way to avoid fulfilling the lusts of the flesh is to learn to walk in lock step with the Spirit.

I'm so confused, you have stated over and over again we do not need to keep God's law, but now stating being in the flesh (sin) is opposed to God's law, which is what I have been saying for a while now which you have disagreed stating we do not need to keep God's law even in this very post, so which is it?

Actually, "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." (Ga 5:18)

How does this relate to above that those who are in the flesh are opposed to God's law if we are not "under" the law - we are either keeping God's law or not keeping it- which is it?

And, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." (Ro 8:2)

Which law are we freed from? It says the law of sin, not God's law.

The lack of condemnation does not come from walking in the Spirit, otherwise walking in the Spirit would just be another euphamism for obeying the law (i.e., there is no condemnation for those who obey the law).

Can we walk in His Spirit and be disobedient to Him? Common sense should tell us the answer but if that doesn't scripture does

Acts 5:32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
So how does this reconcile that we can break God's law and walk in His Spirit?

Are you also saying there is no condemnation for breaking God's law and sinning? Can you point to the scripture that says we can freely sin and be saved. You said you agreed with Mat 7:21-23, 1 John 2:1-7, Heb 10:26-30 Rev 22:14-15 but the above teaching does not reconcile with these scriptures Or with Romans 8:1-8 you keep quoting.

Under this theory, since condemnation is only avoided when you do not sin, condemnation returns to you when you commit a sin. And since we all sin every day, condemnation returns to us all every day. So, how does this theory of freedom from condemnation do us any good?

I don't think you fully understand what repentance means. Repentance does not mean we can sin freely throughout the day and later repent and all is good. Repentance means a change in direction We should not be living in perpetual sin, but be transformed through Jesus. Sin separates us from God, our repentance through the blood of Christ reconciles us, which leads us to being obedient to God’s law Rev 14:12 Rev 22:14. How does not spending time on our knees daily praying to God for forgiveness of our sins and asking His to help us overcome sin not the answer to the sin problem if one slips, its what we are told to do by Jesus. Mat 4:17 When you sin do you not get on your knees and pray to Jesus to cleanse you from all unrighteousness like He promises to do, when we go to Him with a sincere and sorry heart. What is your solution to sin, you seem to not like the solution Jesus gives. You still haven’t answered my question- do you not think Jesus is capable of keeping us from sin when we turn to Him? How do you measure sin? Scripture gives us a clear guide 1 John 3:4 Romans 3:20 Romans 7:7 Romans 4:15

Where does our sin come from if it doesn't come from the flesh? Concerning your desire to to be obedient, have you ever considered 1 Co 10:13 ("No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.") Every time you give into temptation it is because you decide to not take the way out that God provided.

You did not quote where sin comes from. You quoted exactly what I have been trying to explain to you, that through Jesus Christ we can overcome sin. He will not tempt us more that what we can overcome through Him. Sin comes from the devil 1 John 3:8 and it is breaking God's law 1 John 3:4 Romans 7:7 which is what the devil did in heaven because without the law there is no transgression Romans 4:15 sin is the transgression of the law 1 John 3:4 God gives us something tangible to measure ourselves with so we do not have to guess God's righteousness Psa 119:172 or what sin is Romans 7:7. You take away the law all we do is bury our sins, which is a very bad idea Pro 28:13

If we find ourselves to be sinners while we seek to be justified by Christ (Gal 2:17), does that mean we are lost?

What does Christ tells us to do when we sin?

This is obviously the difference between the righteousness of the alive spirit and the depravity of the dead sinful flesh as explicitly defined in Romans 8:10. Not understanding the flesh/spirit model of man presented in Scripture and lived out by every person in whom Christ lives is the reason for the misunderstanding.

Already addressed more than once you need to read all of Romans 8:1-10 in context.

Yes, the new man is created according to God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph 4:24). That is where our sinlessness exists. It is not in the flesh, which cannot be conformed to God's will. We cannot change what the flesh wants, but if we want to deny the flesh what it wants, then we must put on the new man and walk in lock step with the Spirit. If we fail to do so, and fulfil the lusts of the flesh, we have an advocate with the Father (1 Jn 2:1) and do not suffer His condemnation).

An Advocate with the Father to do what? What are we told by the Father to do when we sin? Please quote scripture.

No, if we walk in the Spirit, then we do not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. If we don't walk in the Spirit, there is no way to avoid fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. Do you not see that these choices exist?

Yes, we have been through this too many time and you still do not seem to understand the relation to God's law (not sinning) which is walking in the flesh and those in the flesh (in sin breaking God's law) cannot please God.

Apparently you just ignore your own daily sins and the reasons behind your daily choices to not take the way of escape God provides for every temptation.

How do you know what I do? Such a strange thing to say. I am not an advocate that any of us should ignore sin as I have repeatedly stated the law is just what points our sin, so we can alter our choices and align our choices with God’s righteousness instead of depending on our own version of right-doing which leads us down the wrong path as we cannot sanctify ourselves.

Hmmm. Does He go away when you choose to indulge the flesh, then come back when you repent? And does this happen multiple times every day or every week? Not a good theory.

Do you believe Jesus is capable of keeping us from sinning? I trust in His promises. God's commandments are not meant to be burdensome 1 John 5:3 but meant to be kept through love and faith. I guess it just depends if we believe our devil is bigger than our God to keep us in sin than Jesus Christ is from keeping us from sin.

The heavenly Father corrects all His children whom He loves (Heb 12:5-11).

What does He tell us to do when He corrects us? He just corrects us and that's it, no asking for forgiveness, no asking to overcome?

I do not embrace either of these alternatives.

Sad you seem not believe in obeying God through faith and love and living in faith and His grace is not being obedient to Him, which is exactly what I quoted and you said you do not embrace.

I have tried to show you the relationship between liberty, license, and legalism (Gal 5:1-5), but to no avail.

What does Jesus Christ set us free from? The bondage of sin or free to vain His holy name and worship other gods or break any of His commandments.

The red underlined part of your statement above is the key to understanding. We do not submit to God's law to earn righteousness through obedience (doing so would place us under the curse), but God's laws are written in our hearts when He comes to live inside us (causing us to have delight in God and the things of God).

I never said we keep God's law to earn righteousness, I quoted Paul and said obeying God leads to righteousness Romans 6:16 and reconciliation to God Rev 22:14 because God's law is in our hearts and minds which means we are not “free from it” and should be kept though love and faith of Jesus Christ. Romans 3:31 Rev 14:12 1 John 5:3 John 14:15 Exo 20:6

 

[Soyeong]

Sorry Soy, your explanation is not congruent to Jesus statement that not one jot would pass from the Law until all is fulfilled and it does not in any way relate to the remainder of the sentence "and the prophets". Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophesies about His coming, meaning He brought to an end those prophesies. Fulfilling the Law meant He brought them to an end. That is the only explanation that fits the remainder of His thought.

If you had been speaking about prophesies, then I would have included the full definition in the NAS Greek Lexicon:

"to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment"

So this definition is in accordance with Jesus saying that not the least part will disappear from the law until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished, whereas interpreting Jesus as saying that he brought them to and end contradicts that, plus is contradict Jesus saying that he came not to abolish the law. In addition, it contradicts verses like Psalms 119:160, which says that all of God's righteous laws are eternal. Instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be ended without first ending God.

Absolutely, the Law was still in effect until the new covenant was ratified by Jesus on the Cross where He ratified it with His own blood.

The way to testify about God's nature is straightforwardly based on God's nature, not a particular covenant, and God's nature is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to testify about His nature are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey God's law by word and by example and he did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of negating anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Galatians 3:16-19, a new covenant does not nullify the promise of a covenant that has already been ratified, so the New Covenant does not abolish our need to obey God's law in connection with the promise. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeems from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from would be the way to reject what he accomplished.

Gentiles were never under the Law, but if we love our fellow man as Jesus taught in Jn15:9-14 we have fulfilled everything He taught.

It is by God's law that we have knowledge of sin, so if Gentiles were never under it, then Gentiles have never needed to repent from their sin, have never needed salvation, have never needed grace, have never needed the Gospel, and have never needed Jesus to have given himself to redeem us from all lawlessness. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized God's law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so he expressed his love through his obedience to it and that is also how we are to love one another as he loved us. If you think that we should obey the greatest two commandments, then you should also think that we should obey all of the commandments that hang on them, or in other words, if we love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit adultery, theft, murder, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, and so forth for God's other commands.

When did Gentiles become "under the Law"? It is the Jews that are no longer under the Law. Gentiles never were under the Sinai covenant, so what you believe does not make any sense to me.

We have all been under God's law for as long as God has been eternally sovereign. In other words, someone who is not under the New Covenant does not have any room to claim that they don't need to repent from transgressing its law because they aren't under it. Someone who has not made any covenants with God is still obligated to obey His law because He is sovereign.

The Law is not the Gospel Soy. Why would God want the Jews to spread the weekly Sabbath law and all the other special Sabbaths relating to only those who came out of bondage? That does not make any sense now does it? Why would any other nation want to celebrate the fourth of July?

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel. In Psalms 119:1-3, God's law is how the children of Abraham knew how to be blessed, and in John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him, so the way that the children of Abraham are multiplied and are a blessing to the nations in accordance with inheriting the promise through faith is by teaching the nations to repent and to do the same works as Abraham in obedience to God's law. The significance of God saving His people out of bondage is not to teach us about who the Israelites are, but to teach us about who God is, and we are followers of the same God, so we should live in a way that testifies about who He is.

That , in no way, means we are not able to discern which laws dealt with morality toward their fellow man and the laws that dealt with ceremonies. Your reasoning is a copout and does not apply.

We are free to create whatever categories that we want and to decide for ourselves which laws we think best fit into our categories, but we should not interpret the Bible as referring to a list of laws that we have created. I have the freedom to categorize God's laws based on which part of the body is most commonly used to obey/disobey them, so such as with the law against theft being a hand law, but just because I can do that does not establish that the authors of the Bible categorized them in the same manner or that they were in agreement about the list of with which laws are best described as being hand laws, so if I were to make claims such that hand laws were never given to other nations or that hand laws are not moral laws, then I would be making the same sort of error that you are making.

The existence of the moral law implies that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that aren't in that category, however, there are no examples in the Bible of this, and I do not see any justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. All legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done, so for you to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws, and therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.

It tells us Jews are not under the ten commandments. Why are you so opposed to believing what the verses are telling us? Gentiles were never under the ten commandments , so that doesn't even apply to us.

It says no such thing, but rather, it speaks about being under the New Covenant, which still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying His law, so we should still obey God's law regardless of whether or not your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:6-11 is correct.

In the New Testament the Holy Spirit is leading us to obey Jesus commands. In Jn 15:10-14 Jesus told us He kept the Sinai Covenant that His Father gave to Israel and He asks us to keep His commandments which is love to God and love to our fellow man.

You argue against obeying what Ezekiel 36:25-27 says that the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey. Jesus is one with the Father, so he was not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, but rather in John 15:10, he used a parallel statement to equate his commands with those of the Father. Jesus was not hypocritically saying that we should only do as he said, but not as he did, but rather we are told to follow his example of keeping God's commandments (1 Peter 2:21-22). In John 14:24, Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he did not teach his own set of commands. The Mosaic Covenant contains God's instructions for how to love Him and our fellow man.

Sure God's Laws given to only the nation of Israel were truth and Israelites were not to reject even on jot or tittle of it. Gentile nations were never required by God to observe the Sinai Covenant.

Gentile nations also should not reject the truth. You post is in opposition to truth. In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that went up out of Egypt with them, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai, and in John 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both the foreigner and the native born, so Gentiles are also able to become followers of the God of Israel by following His law.

 

[Leaf473]

Hi Leaf473,

Ok, I think I'm following along and that's an interesting attempt to bring your belief in alignment with Scripture.

I'm glad you found it interesting. Of course, I see my beliefs as in alignment with scripture, not something that needs to be brought into alignment

That said, I believe the premise is incorrect.

Great! Here's looking forward to a respectful discussion

Earlier on this thread @Bob S made the claim that "SDAs are masters at segregating laws."

To which I replied:

You know Who else is a Master at "segregating laws"? Oh, that's right, Jesus ​

​

Deuteronomy 5:31​

But you stay here with me so that I may give you all the commands, decrees and laws you are to teach them to follow in the land I am giving them to possess.”​

In Deuteronomy 11:1 we see it segregated a bit more: "Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always."

The point here is that the law is isolated from the requirements (i.e. statutes) and decrees, which I believe contain the sacrifices. I believe the Ten Commandments are also identified as law, but the numeral attached to these commandments constrains this unit to only ten. Thus there is no contradiction in the New Testament when it affirms the law in the present tense as being "holy, righteous and good." Paul continues this thought and says it is by this law that sin is recognized as sin (see Romans 7:13). So if there is no longer any law, then you have no ability to recognize sin.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Edit: oops! I hit the reply button too soon. I meant to add more, but I'll make a separate post out of it

 

[Leaf473]

Hi Leaf473,

Ok, I think I'm following along and that's an interesting attempt to bring your belief in alignment with Scripture. That said, I believe the premise is incorrect.

Earlier on this thread @Bob S made the claim that "SDAs are masters at segregating laws."

To which I replied:

You know Who else is a Master at "segregating laws"? Oh, that's right, Jesus ​

​

Deuteronomy 5:31​

But you stay here with me so that I may give you all the commands, decrees and laws you are to teach them to follow in the land I am giving them to possess.”​

In Deuteronomy 11:1 we see it segregated a bit more: "Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always."

Are you saying that the entire law is separated into requirements, decrees, laws and commands? If so, what's the difference between a requirement and a decree and so on?

The point here is that the law is isolated from the requirements (i.e. statutes) and decrees, which I believe contain the sacrifices. I believe the Ten Commandments are also identified as law, but the numeral attached to these commandments constrains this unit to only ten. Thus there is no contradiction in the New Testament when it affirms the law in the present tense as being "holy, righteous and good." Paul continues this thought and says it is by this law that sin is recognized as sin (see Romans 7:13). So if there is no longer any law, then you have no ability to recognize sin.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Gary K]

Are you saying that the entire law is separated into requirements, decrees, laws and commands? If so, what's the difference between a requirement and a decree and so on?

Icyspark didn't say that. Scripture does. Big difference.

 

[Leaf473]

Icyspark didn't say that. Scripture does. Big difference.

Does scripture say that the entire law is divided into those categories? To put it differently, is it only those categories, or are there more?

 

[Bob S]

If you had been speaking about prophesies, then I would have included the full definition in the NAS Greek Lexicon:

"to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment"

1. to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise.
2. to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands.

1. to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.):a book that fulfills a long-felt need.
2. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time:
3. to develop the full potential of (usually used reflexively):She realized that she could never fulfill herself in such work.

So this definition is in accordance with Jesus saying that not the least part will disappear from the law until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished,

That saying is hyperbole Soy and you forgot the word "till" before all. Why?

whereas interpreting Jesus as saying that he brought them to and end contradicts that, plus is contradict Jesus saying that he came not to abolish the law. In addition, it contradicts verses like Psalms 119:160, which says that all of God's righteous laws are eternal. Instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be ended without first ending God.


The way to testify about God's nature is straightforwardly based on God's nature, not a particular covenant, and God's nature is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to testify about His nature are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey God's law by word and by example and he did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of negating anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Galatians 3:16-19, a new covenant does not nullify the promise of a covenant that has already been ratified, so the New Covenant does not abolish our need to obey God's law in connection with the promise. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeems from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from would be the way to reject what he accomplished.

"God's nature" just what does that man? God's nature is eternal, BUT He has changed His Mind when He got so angry with the children of Israel he was going to annihilate them. Moses had to talk Him out of doing so. Bring Jesus on to the scene was part of the plan of salvation and the new covenant is also part of the plan. The new plan for mankind is to love each other and believe in Jesus. It is not ceremonies like Sabbaths.

I-t is by God's law that we have knowledge of sin, so if Gentiles were never under it, then Gentiles have never needed to repent from their sin, have never needed salvation, have never needed grace, have never needed the Gospel, and have never needed Jesus to have given himself to redeem us from all lawlessness.

Please show me where Gentiles were under the Sinai covenant. Your statement is very poor reasoning Soy. Gentiles were under either the Noahide covenant and or the Abrahamic covenant.

In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized God's law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so he expressed his love through his obedience to it and that is also how we are to love one another as he loved us. If you think that we should obey the greatest two commandments, then you should also think that we should obey all of the commandments that hang on them, or in other words, if we love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit adultery, theft, murder, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, and so forth for God's other commands.


We have all been under God's law for as long as God has been eternally sovereign. In other words, someone who is not under the New Covenant does not have any room to claim that they don't need to repent from transgressing its law because they aren't under it. Someone who has not made any covenants with God is still obligated to obey His law because He is sovereign.

We are under the Law to love others as Jesus loves us. He said it and I believe it.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel. In Psalms 119:1-3, God's law is how the children of Abraham knew how to be blessed, and in John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him, so the way that the children of Abraham are multiplied and are a blessing to the nations in accordance with inheriting the promise through faith is by teaching the nations to repent and to do the same works as Abraham in obedience to God's law. The significance of God saving His people out of bondage is not to teach us about who the Israelites are, but to teach us about who God is, and we are followers of the same God, so we should live in a way that testifies about who He is.


We are free to create whatever categories that we want and to decide for ourselves which laws we think best fit into our categories, but we should not interpret the Bible as referring to a list of laws that we have created. I have the freedom to categorize God's laws based on which part of the body is most commonly used to obey/disobey them, so such as with the law against theft being a hand law, but just because I can do that does not establish that the authors of the Bible categorized them in the same manner or that they were in agreement about the list of with which laws are best described as being hand laws, so if I were to make claims such that hand laws were never given to other nations or that hand laws are not moral laws, then I would be making the same sort of error that you are making.

I cannot commit thievery because I wouldn't be loving my fellow man, not because thou shalt not.

The existence of the moral law implies that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that aren't in that category, however, there are no examples in the Bible of this, and I do not see any justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God.

I am not under the laws given only to the Jews. I am under the Royal Law of Love. There is no requirement in the New Testament for me to keep the laws dealing with ceremonies found in the Sinai Covenant

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws.

And if you don't? May I remind you that there are many laws in the old Sinai Covenant

All legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done, so for you to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws, and therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.

That is just a bunch of bologna Soy. Of course all of God's laws are/were moral not immoral. I said some dealt with morality, some with civil duties, some with health and some with ceremonies. How you came up with saying what you did is beyond my comprehension.

It says no such thing, but rather, it speaks about being under the New Covenant, which still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying His law, so we should still obey God's law regardless of whether or not your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:6-11 is correct.

Paul says (KJV) that the ten commandments were DONE AWAY. Was Paul a liar???? New covenant new laws. New High Priest, new laws

You argue against obeying what Ezekiel 36:25-27 says that the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey. Jesus is one with the Father, so he was not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, but rather in John 15:10, he used a parallel statement to equate his commands with those of the Father. Jesus was not hypocritically saying that we should only do as he said, but not as he did, but rather we are told to follow his example of keeping God's commandments (1 Peter 2:21-22). In John 14:24, Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he did not teach his own set of commands. The Mosaic Covenant contains God's instructions for how to love Him and our fellow man.

I ssay read Jn15:
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Gentile nations also should not reject the truth. You post is in opposition to truth.

Only in your eyes. I believe in Jesus and love like He commanded. Jn tells me I belong to the truth

In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that went up out of Egypt with them, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai, and in John 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both the foreigner and the native born, so Gentiles are also able to become followers of the God of Israel by following His law.

They could follow the Law, but it was by circumcision that they could have a part in the ceremonies.

 

[Gary K]

1. to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise.
2. to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands.
3. to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.):a book that fulfills a long-felt need.
4. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time:
5. to develop the full potential of (usually used reflexively):She realized that she could never fulfill herself in such work.

That saying is hyperbole Soy and you forgot the word "till" before all. Why?

"God's nature" just what does that man? God's nature is eternal, BUT He has changed His Mind when He got so angry with the children of Israel he was going to annihilate them. Moses had to talk Him out of doing so. Bring Jesus on to the scene was part of the plan of salvation and the new covenant is also part of the plan. The new plan for mankind is to love each other and believe in Jesus. It is not ceremonies like Sabbaths.

Please show me where Gentiles were under the Sinai covenant. Your statement is very poor reasoning Soy. Gentiles were under either the Noahide covenant and or the Abrahamic covenant.


We are under the Law to love others as Jesus loves us. He said it and I believe it.

I cannot commit thievery because I wouldn't be loving my fellow man, not because thou shalt not.

I am not under the laws given only to the Jews. I am under the Royal Law of Love. There is no requirement in the New Testament for me to keep the laws dealing with ceremonies found in the Sinai Covenant

And if you don't? May I remind you that there are many laws in the old Sinai Covenant

That is just a bunch of bologna Soy. Of course all of God's laws are/were moral not immoral. I said some dealt with morality, some with civil duties, some with health and some with ceremonies. How you came up with saying what you did is beyond my comprehension.

Paul says (KJV) that the ten commandments were DONE AWAY. Was Paul a liar???? New covenant new laws. New High Priest, new laws

I ssay read Jn15:
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Only in your eyes. I believe in Jesus and love like He commanded. Jn tells me I belong to the truth

They could follow the Law, but it was by circumcision that they could have a part in the ceremonies.

I know Soyeong can answer this as well as I can, but here goes anyway.

Numbers 15: 16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

Numbers 15: 29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.

Hebrew word translated as stranger,

[*StrongsHebrew*]
1616
גּיר גּר
gêr gêyr {gare} gare
From H1481; properly a guest; by implication a foreigner: - {alien} {sojourner} stranger.

Hebrew word translated as sojourneth.

[*StrongsHebrew*]
1481
גּוּר
gûr goor
A primitive root; properly to turn aside from the road (for a lodging or any other {purpose}) that {is} sojourn (as a guest); also to {shrink} fear (as in a strange place); also to gather for hostility (as afraid): - {abide} {assemble} be {afraid} {dwell} {fear} gather ({together}) {inhabitant} {remain} {sojourn} stand in {awe} (be) {stranger} X surely.

 

[Soyeong]

1. to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise.
2. to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands.
3. to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.):a book that fulfills a long-felt need.
4. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time:
5. to develop the full potential of (usually used reflexively):She realized that she could never fulfill herself in such work.

The definition that I used is the only one that the NAS Greek Lexicon listed being specifically in regard to the context of fulfilling the law, it fits with what Jesus immediately proceeded to do next after he said he came to fulfill the law, it fits with how other verses like Galatians 5:14, Galatians 6:2, and Romans 15:18-19 use the term, it fits with how other Jewish writings use the term, it fits with the concept of someone fulfilling their marriage vows by correctly doing what they vowed to do, and it even fits with the definitions #1-3 that you listed.

On the other hand, definition #4 is contrary to Jesus saying that he came not to abolish the law, it is contrary to Jesus warning against relaxing the least part of the law or teaching others to do that, it is contrary to what Jesus proceeded to do next after he said that he came to fulfill the law as well, it is contrary to what Jesus taught by word and by example throughout the rest of his ministry, it is contrary to how other verses like Galatians 5:14, Galatians 6:2, and Romans 15:18-19 use the term, it is contrary to verses like Romans 3:31, which says that our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather it upholds it and Psalms 119:160, which says that all of God's righteous laws are eternal, it is contrary to how other Jewish writings use the term, and there is nothing else in the Bible that says anything along the lines that fulfilling the Mosaic Law causes the Mosaic Covenant to end.

So you'll need to provide good reason for rejecting the definition I listed in favor of using #4.

That saying is hyperbole Soy and you forgot the word "till" before all. Why?

Jesus said that not the least part would disappear from the law until heaven disappear and all is accomplished, neither of which has happened yet, both of which refer to end times (Revelation 22:1) or are ways of saying that it is never going to happen.

"God's nature" just what does that man?

The Bible often uses the same terms to describe aspects of the nature of God as it does to describe aspects of the nature of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23), and this is because it is God's instructions for how to testify about those aspects of God's nature. For example, our good works testify about God's goodness, which is why they give glory to Him (Matthew 5:16), and by testifying about God's goodness, we are expressing the belief that God is good, or in other words, we are believing in Him. The only way that eternal instructions for how to testify about God's eternal goodness can be ended is if God is no longer eternally good, and the same is true of other aspects of God's nature.

So the set of laws that the God of Israel has given paint is a picture of His nature and serve as an identity marker. For example, if the God of Israel had instead commanded His people to commit adultery, then that would paint a very different picture of His nature and someone who followed a God who commanded that would not be following a God with the same identity as the God of Israel. So if the New Covenant were made with a different set of laws that the Mosaic Law, then it would be made with a different God with a different nature than that of the God of Israel, but it in reality it is made with the same God with the same nature and therefore the same Mosaic Law for how to testify about His nature (Jeremiah 31:33). In 1 Peter 1:16, we are instructed to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes keeping His Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3), so someone who refuses to obey His laws for how to be holy as He is holy is living in a way that testifies that the God that they follow is not holy, who therefore that their God does not have the same identity as the God of Israel.

God's nature is eternal, BUT He has changed His Mind when He got so angry with the children of Israel he was going to annihilate them. Moses had to talk Him out of doing so. Bring Jesus on to the scene was part of the plan of salvation and the new covenant is also part of the plan. The new plan for mankind is to love each other and believe in Jesus. It is not ceremonies like Sabbaths.

The Mosaic Covenant teaching to love each other and believe in Jesus, so that is not a new plan. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, so that is part of his identify, and we should live in a way that testifies about the nature of who he is by keeping the Sabbath holy in obedience to God's command in accordance with the example that Jesus set for us to follow. When we do good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law, we are expressing our love for God's goodness, and by being holy as God is holy, we are expressing our love for God's holiness, so everything that the God of Israel has chosen to command was specially commanded for the purpose of teaching us how to love a different aspect of His nature, which is why there are many verses in both the OT and the NT that connect our love for God with our obedience to His commandments, and we can't love God by refusing to obey His instructions for how to love Him. Likewise, we can't believe in Jesus by refusing to obey God's instructions for how to believe in him, or in other words, we can't believe in God's word made flesh by refusing to obey God's word. We can't believe in Jesus by rejecting part of his identity.

Please show me where Gentiles were under the Sinai covenant. Your statement is very poor reasoning Soy. Gentiles were under either the Noahide covenant and or the Abrahamic covenant.

In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that went up out of Egypt with the Israelites, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai, and in Joshua 8:33 Israel was inclusive of both the foreigner and the native born, so Gentiles are able to become followers of the God of Israel by following His law. All of God's covenants are in complete accordance with each other and the Mosaic Covenant is in accordance with the promise made as part of the Abrahamic Covenant. The obligation of Gentiles to refrain from sin is not dependent upon being part of a particular covenant is is dependent on God's sovereignty, and God has revealed what sin is through the Mosaic Law (Romans 3:20).

We are under the Law to love others as Jesus loves us. He said it and I believe it.

The you should agree that we are under the Law of Moses, but you argue against doing that, so you don't believe what he said.

I cannot commit thievery because I wouldn't be loving my fellow man, not because thou shalt not.

If we love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit theft, murder, Idolatry, adultery, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, and so forth for everything else commanded in the Mosaic Law. Though ultimately God is sovereign, so someone would still obligated to obey God even if they don't love Him or their neighbor.

I am not under the laws given only to the Jews. I am under the Royal Law of Love. There is no requirement in the New Testament for me to keep the laws dealing with ceremonies found in the Sinai Covenant

The Mosaic Law is the Royal Law of Love, so you are contradicting yourself. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes laws that you've personally decided are ceremonial. Likewise, in 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a treasure of God's own possession, which as terms uses to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also have the delight of getting to obey the instructions that God gave to Israel for how to fulfill those roles. It is contradictory for a Gentiles to want to live as part of a holy nation while not wanting to follow God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation.

And if you don't? May I remind you that there are many laws in the old Sinai Covenant

If we do not obey God's laws, then we are sinning and are acting immorally.

That is just a bunch of bologna Soy. Of course all of God's laws are/were moral not immoral. I said some dealt with morality, some with civil duties, some with health and some with ceremonies. How you came up with saying what you did is beyond my comprehension.

All of God's laws inherently deal with morality and for you to claim that some of God's laws do not deal with morality is to claim that God made an error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws. You personally deciding that someone of God's laws are in regard to civil duties, health, or ceremonies does not mean that they do not also deal with morality. For example, we have a civil duty to refrain from committing rape, but that is also a moral duty.

Paul says (KJV) that the ten commandments were DONE AWAY. Was Paul a liar???? New covenant new laws. New High Priest, new laws

Paul said in Romans 3:31 that our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds yet, yet instead of upholding it, you seek to abolish it, so do you think that Paul lied? In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law.

I ssay read Jn15:
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Again, I don't see any grounds for thinking that what Jesus commanded was contrary to what the Father has commanded, but rather Jesus is one with the Father. Jesus obeyed the Father's commands and he was not hypocritically suggesting that we should only do as he said, but not as he did.

Only in your eyes. I believe in Jesus and love like He commanded. Jn tells me I belong to the truth

Do you agree or disagree that we should follow what Psalms 119:142 says is truth? Jesus embodied what Psalms 119:142 says is truth by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law (John 14:6) and the way to follow the truth, to believe in Him, and to love like he commanded is not by refusing to follow his example.

They could follow the Law, but it was by circumcision that they could have a part in the ceremonies.

In Exodus 12:48, a Gentile was required to become circumcised in order to eat of the Passover lamb.