Dear 'BibleGuy' . . .
- Thread starter JGIG
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
They are all correct according to the working of Christ’s faith, the anointing Holy Spirit of God....as imputed grace that works in us to both will and do His good pleasure.
Perhaps you are assuming the faith of God is not the work of Christ according to the law(Torah) of liberty and we should be judged by the law of death that shows we need a savior to pay the eternal wage". This would be according to the literal word and not the law of faith in respect to the spiritual unseen, I believe.
Christians who are already being judged by the Torah of liberty will not be found with any righteousness of the flesh. That other kind of law shows us to stumble at the least is to be found guilty of violating the whole wage of sin which again is eternal separation never rising to new spirit life.
Christians are typified as the freed woman not after Hagar the assumed queen of heaven, in respect to a law of works .
James 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
It seems you have made the law( Torah) of liberty into a law( Torah) of men that they can keep without stumbling in the least of the commandments, rather than the law of faith in respect to Christ finished work of faith, as an exclusive labor of His love. If that was true Then you could have something to boast of but not in front of God, I believe. .
omans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? “of works”? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Which master will you serve seeing no man can serve two?
Perhaps you are assuming the faith of God is not the work of Christ according to the law(Torah) of liberty and we should be judged by the law of death that shows we need a savior to pay the eternal wage". This would be according to the literal word and not the law of faith in respect to the spiritual unseen, I believe.
Christians who are already being judged by the Torah of liberty will not be found with any righteousness of the flesh. That other kind of law shows us to stumble at the least is to be found guilty of violating the whole wage of sin which again is eternal separation never rising to new spirit life.
Christians are typified as the freed woman not after Hagar the assumed queen of heaven, in respect to a law of works .
James 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
It seems you have made the law( Torah) of liberty into a law( Torah) of men that they can keep without stumbling in the least of the commandments, rather than the law of faith in respect to Christ finished work of faith, as an exclusive labor of His love. If that was true Then you could have something to boast of but not in front of God, I believe. .
omans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? “of works”? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Which master will you serve seeing no man can serve two?
Hello Angela 53510,
Thanks for joining the chat!
But unless you defend your position against the 11-point argument (which JGIG refuses to even properly engage by telling us which premise(s) she rejects and why), then you've merely established that your viewpoint is INCONSISTENT with mine.
You haven't shown your position is BETTER than mine.
Furthermore, the phrase "law of commandments expressed in ordinances" does not even refer to Torah anyway....
Why? Because there is no Torah commandment that requires that Jew and Gentile be separated by a barrier (wall of hostility).
So the "law" abolished in Eph. 2:15 is man-made human DOGMA which (in opposition to Torah) divides Jew from Gentile.
The "law" abolished in Eph. 2:15 is not God's Torah. Remember? Paul JOYFULLY CONCURS with God's Torah (Rom. 7:22), but JGIG joyfully OPPOSES obedience to that very Torah.
BIG difference!
Paul would not JOYFULLY CONCUR with an abolished law he opposes!
Paul's beliefs are in ACCORDANCE with Torah and the Prophets (Ac. 24:14), but JGIG's beliefs OPPOSE the Torah and OPPOSE the Prophets who prophesy of Torah-to-come even in the future.
BIG DIFFERENCE! PAUL vs. JGIG....you choose.
"Dogma" never refers to Torah! It refers to the decrees or rulings in RESPONSE to Torah judgments or to a governmental administrator's decrees/rulings of his own design.
If you know Greek, then you can verify this for yourself. Rather than ignorantly rely on some canned "definition" from a Bible resource (as JGIG likes to do), simply examine the contextual usage of "dogma" throughout the NT and LXX, and see my position is confirmed.
After all, we don't IMPOSE canned definitions of terms onto their linguistic expression within texts....RATHER, we EXTRAPOLATE definitions of terms FROM the text.
CANNED definitions are NOT Scripture...
Thus, the abolished "dogma" of Eph. 2:15 is NOT abolished Torah!
But of course, JGIG would not bring out these facts...because then it would disconfirm her position!
Remember? JGIG doesn't want us to think a word refers to "Torah" unless we see something like maybe "graphe" or "nomos". But there's NO "graphe" or "nomos" even in Col. 2:14 (so don't bother with a failed counter-example attempt from there).
And the "nomos" of Eph. 2:15 is a "nomos" contained in "dogma"....NOT contained in Torah.
Right?
We can't say that "dogma" refers to Torah (according to JGIG's reasoning....), because THEN we would be saying that "dogma" is DEFINED as Torah (again, using that faulty ["object" = "definition"] confusion she espouses, but has not justified).
So then, will YOU explain to us which premise(s) you reject in this argument which JGIG REFUSES to engage properly?
Here it is again (in case you missed it):
1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).
But be careful!
If you actually directly challenge ANY PREMISE (or if you explain ANY REASON why you reject one of these specific premises), then (according to JGIG) you are GUILTY of FALLING FOR THE BAIT and GETTING SUCKED INTO A CHILDISH GAME.
So what do you choose?
Defend your position against my 11-premise argument?
Or REBUKE JGIG’s characterization of such a defense as “falling for bait” and “getting sucked into a childish game”?
You choose!
And if you REFUSE (like JGIG and others here in this thread) to engage my 11-premise argument directly...well....then you've likewise FAILED to permit us to properly test your anti-Torah viewpoint. We should, thus, reject such a failed defense.
best…
BibleGuy
Thanks for joining the chat!
But unless you defend your position against the 11-point argument (which JGIG refuses to even properly engage by telling us which premise(s) she rejects and why), then you've merely established that your viewpoint is INCONSISTENT with mine.
You haven't shown your position is BETTER than mine.
Furthermore, the phrase "law of commandments expressed in ordinances" does not even refer to Torah anyway....
Why? Because there is no Torah commandment that requires that Jew and Gentile be separated by a barrier (wall of hostility).
So the "law" abolished in Eph. 2:15 is man-made human DOGMA which (in opposition to Torah) divides Jew from Gentile.
The "law" abolished in Eph. 2:15 is not God's Torah. Remember? Paul JOYFULLY CONCURS with God's Torah (Rom. 7:22), but JGIG joyfully OPPOSES obedience to that very Torah.
BIG difference!
Paul would not JOYFULLY CONCUR with an abolished law he opposes!
Paul's beliefs are in ACCORDANCE with Torah and the Prophets (Ac. 24:14), but JGIG's beliefs OPPOSE the Torah and OPPOSE the Prophets who prophesy of Torah-to-come even in the future.
BIG DIFFERENCE! PAUL vs. JGIG....you choose.
"Dogma" never refers to Torah! It refers to the decrees or rulings in RESPONSE to Torah judgments or to a governmental administrator's decrees/rulings of his own design.
If you know Greek, then you can verify this for yourself. Rather than ignorantly rely on some canned "definition" from a Bible resource (as JGIG likes to do), simply examine the contextual usage of "dogma" throughout the NT and LXX, and see my position is confirmed.
After all, we don't IMPOSE canned definitions of terms onto their linguistic expression within texts....RATHER, we EXTRAPOLATE definitions of terms FROM the text.
CANNED definitions are NOT Scripture...
Thus, the abolished "dogma" of Eph. 2:15 is NOT abolished Torah!
But of course, JGIG would not bring out these facts...because then it would disconfirm her position!
Remember? JGIG doesn't want us to think a word refers to "Torah" unless we see something like maybe "graphe" or "nomos". But there's NO "graphe" or "nomos" even in Col. 2:14 (so don't bother with a failed counter-example attempt from there).
And the "nomos" of Eph. 2:15 is a "nomos" contained in "dogma"....NOT contained in Torah.
Right?
We can't say that "dogma" refers to Torah (according to JGIG's reasoning....), because THEN we would be saying that "dogma" is DEFINED as Torah (again, using that faulty ["object" = "definition"] confusion she espouses, but has not justified).
So then, will YOU explain to us which premise(s) you reject in this argument which JGIG REFUSES to engage properly?
Here it is again (in case you missed it):
1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).
But be careful!
If you actually directly challenge ANY PREMISE (or if you explain ANY REASON why you reject one of these specific premises), then (according to JGIG) you are GUILTY of FALLING FOR THE BAIT and GETTING SUCKED INTO A CHILDISH GAME.
So what do you choose?
Defend your position against my 11-premise argument?
Or REBUKE JGIG’s characterization of such a defense as “falling for bait” and “getting sucked into a childish game”?
You choose!
And if you REFUSE (like JGIG and others here in this thread) to engage my 11-premise argument directly...well....then you've likewise FAILED to permit us to properly test your anti-Torah viewpoint. We should, thus, reject such a failed defense.
best…
BibleGuy
Serious here? Or sarcasm?
Can't tell....
You, on the other hand, have taken a "canned" definition and imposed it upon a term, thereby refusing to discern the contextual OBJECT to which the defined term is referencing, and thus confusing OBJECT with DEFINITION.
You won't appreciate this point if you do not know that definitions in general (and objective references in particular) are determined from contextual usage.
Surely you do not dispute this?!
After all, I thought you were a big fan of "contextual Scripture"....remember?
BibleGuy
Can't tell....
You, on the other hand, have taken a "canned" definition and imposed it upon a term, thereby refusing to discern the contextual OBJECT to which the defined term is referencing, and thus confusing OBJECT with DEFINITION.
You won't appreciate this point if you do not know that definitions in general (and objective references in particular) are determined from contextual usage.
Surely you do not dispute this?!
After all, I thought you were a big fan of "contextual Scripture"....remember?
BibleGuy
Hello fredoheaven,
You wrote: "The Great Commission set forth in Matthew 28:20 is not a pre-cross teaching. It is after cross teaching."
My response: Of course. BUT! The post-cross Great Commission APPLIES the pre-cross teachings to disciples of all nations! (the very thing JGIG opposes...)
SO you choose...
Apply Jesus' pre-cross Torah-teachings teachings (e.g., Mt. 4:4; Mt. 5:19; Mt. 7:21-23; Mt. 13:41-42; Mt. 23:2-3,23,34, Lk. 10:25-28, etc.) to disciples of all nations....as Jesus COMMANDS (Mt. 28:20).
Or be like JGIG who ignores these pre-cross commands/teachings (this violating our Lord's command in Mt. 28:20).
You choose.
You wrote: "Torah keeping does nothing of the eternal life."
My response: Have you not read Lk. 10:25-28?
You wrote: " If ever the Law (TORAH) keeping is for eternal life then there is NO NEED for Christ. "
My response: Those who obey Torah in faith likewise obey Dt. 18 which requires obedience to the Messiah which requires obedience to even Paul who says we are saved by grace through faith, leading to eternal life.
It's consistent, not contradictory.
Let's not pretend that those who obey Torah in faith do NOT also experience salvation by grace through faith leading to eternal life.
best...
BibleGuy
You wrote: "The Great Commission set forth in Matthew 28:20 is not a pre-cross teaching. It is after cross teaching."
My response: Of course. BUT! The post-cross Great Commission APPLIES the pre-cross teachings to disciples of all nations! (the very thing JGIG opposes...)
SO you choose...
Apply Jesus' pre-cross Torah-teachings teachings (e.g., Mt. 4:4; Mt. 5:19; Mt. 7:21-23; Mt. 13:41-42; Mt. 23:2-3,23,34, Lk. 10:25-28, etc.) to disciples of all nations....as Jesus COMMANDS (Mt. 28:20).
Or be like JGIG who ignores these pre-cross commands/teachings (this violating our Lord's command in Mt. 28:20).
You choose.
You wrote: "Torah keeping does nothing of the eternal life."
My response: Have you not read Lk. 10:25-28?
You wrote: " If ever the Law (TORAH) keeping is for eternal life then there is NO NEED for Christ. "
My response: Those who obey Torah in faith likewise obey Dt. 18 which requires obedience to the Messiah which requires obedience to even Paul who says we are saved by grace through faith, leading to eternal life.
It's consistent, not contradictory.
Let's not pretend that those who obey Torah in faith do NOT also experience salvation by grace through faith leading to eternal life.
best...
BibleGuy
Hello again fredoheaven,
Why are you defending your rejection of my premises?
Remember?
JGIG's methodology requires that we infer that you are GUILTY of FALLING FOR THE BAIT and GETTING SUCKED INTO A CHILDISH GAME.
Sounds like you are opposing JGIG's methodology. (good!)
Now, regarding Premise 5 you wrote: "No. It was the written Law of Moses that included Deut.8:3."
My response: Of course the written Torah includes Dt. 8:3. But, this fact does NOT entail that Dt. 8:3 does not refer to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses.
So, you haven't proven that your statement entails the contradiction of Premise 5.
Moreoever, Premise 5 simply logically flows from Premises 1 and 4 (NEITHER of which have you given any good reason for us to dispute).
So again, your opposition to Premise 5 stands unjustified.
And, regarding Premise 8, you wrote: "Nop. It is not the “Rhema” but the which was written (grapho) in the Law of Moses which was cited in Matthew 4:4"
My response: You don't even understand the meaning of Premise 8. Premise 8 does not deny that Dt. 8:3 is contained in the written Torah of Moses. Rather, Premise 8 simply notes that the Greek term "rhema" in Mt. 4:4 is simply a Greek quotation of the Greek term "rhema" in the Greek LXX (Dt. 8:3).
So, your criticism of my Premise 8 shows that you have not appreciated this meaning.
But thank you for at least engaging the premises!
That's MORE than JGIG is willing to do...
She won't even tell us which premise she rejects!
She won't even tell us WHY she rejects a specifically numbered premise!
She won't even PERMIT us to test her position against the criticism I've brought forth.
Thus, her position FAILS the test...
best...
BibleGuy
Hi there simplified truth!
Nice to see you again....
What do you think? Quite a thread, eh?
I have another commitment....so maybe you can help shine some good Torah truth in here while I'm busy?
I remember you had some nice things to say in other threads...
And yes, the exciting personalities in this thread are surely...well....REAL?
Well...let's say REALLY interesting.
Some I think may be sincerely seeking truth...
But others are clearly running away from truth presented to them on a silver platter.
I try to be more gentle and soft with those who appear to be genuinely seeking and learning.
And, I must be more pointed and "rough" with those who need that kind of language.
But sadly, the greater the measure of truth which my critics oppose, the greater their liability for judgment.
So perhaps I should resort to speaking in parables (like our Messiah) so as to minimize their ever-increasing liability for judgment here?
BE CAREFUL HOW YOU HEAR!
Something to think about....but then again, I think the benefits here outweigh the costs.
We now have a permanent THREAD to which we may refer, which will forever document the technique we may ALL use to refute the anti-Torah theology of JGIG and her proponents.
She says she doesn't want to fall for the bait....but she already has!
Anyway, it's nice to use our critics to sharpen our skills, sharing truth with genuine seekers who might happen to stroll this way, and learning how to better adapt our position to account for objections we may have not previously considered.
We have nothing to fear from rigorous pursuit of truth.
And every last objection JGIG (or others raise) I'll be happy to address in detail.
But why bother?
I mean, I can set forth another 1000 well-document logically structured Scripturally-supported Torah-affirming arguments with carefully qualified premises, and then JGIG can come up with another dozen excuses for NOT explaining how we can test her viewpoint against those specific premises.
OK.....Maybe if we give JGIG another week she can find time to call her friends, neighbors, pastors, theologians, professors, ANYONE ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET who might be able to help her defend her position against my 11-point argument she continues to REFUSE to properly critique from the anti-Torah perspective she espouses.
Then maybe we can actually TEST the position she is hiding from us...
In case you missed it, simplifiedtruth, here is the argument she CONTINUES to REFUSE to engage (by refusing to explain which premise(s) she opposes and why):
1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).
I'LL BE BACK!
(ok....now my critics can run WILD in their anti-Torah theology for a week! Have fun!)
Troll away!
blessings...
BibleGuy
Nice to see you again....
What do you think? Quite a thread, eh?
I have another commitment....so maybe you can help shine some good Torah truth in here while I'm busy?
I remember you had some nice things to say in other threads...
And yes, the exciting personalities in this thread are surely...well....REAL?
Well...let's say REALLY interesting.
Some I think may be sincerely seeking truth...
But others are clearly running away from truth presented to them on a silver platter.
I try to be more gentle and soft with those who appear to be genuinely seeking and learning.
And, I must be more pointed and "rough" with those who need that kind of language.
But sadly, the greater the measure of truth which my critics oppose, the greater their liability for judgment.
So perhaps I should resort to speaking in parables (like our Messiah) so as to minimize their ever-increasing liability for judgment here?
BE CAREFUL HOW YOU HEAR!
Something to think about....but then again, I think the benefits here outweigh the costs.
We now have a permanent THREAD to which we may refer, which will forever document the technique we may ALL use to refute the anti-Torah theology of JGIG and her proponents.
She says she doesn't want to fall for the bait....but she already has!
Anyway, it's nice to use our critics to sharpen our skills, sharing truth with genuine seekers who might happen to stroll this way, and learning how to better adapt our position to account for objections we may have not previously considered.
We have nothing to fear from rigorous pursuit of truth.
And every last objection JGIG (or others raise) I'll be happy to address in detail.
But why bother?
I mean, I can set forth another 1000 well-document logically structured Scripturally-supported Torah-affirming arguments with carefully qualified premises, and then JGIG can come up with another dozen excuses for NOT explaining how we can test her viewpoint against those specific premises.
OK.....Maybe if we give JGIG another week she can find time to call her friends, neighbors, pastors, theologians, professors, ANYONE ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET who might be able to help her defend her position against my 11-point argument she continues to REFUSE to properly critique from the anti-Torah perspective she espouses.
Then maybe we can actually TEST the position she is hiding from us...
In case you missed it, simplifiedtruth, here is the argument she CONTINUES to REFUSE to engage (by refusing to explain which premise(s) she opposes and why):
1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).
I'LL BE BACK!
(ok....now my critics can run WILD in their anti-Torah theology for a week! Have fun!)
Troll away!
blessings...
BibleGuy
R
I do not believe anybody is arguing the fact that the law comes from the Lord, or that the law was given to Moses. Your verses are correct, BUT what you fail to realize is that the mystery has been revealed and all of your verses were to Jews under the law before the mystery. The mystery was not revealed until Paul. You may be revealing truth to a Jew under the law, but you are forgetting about the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ being crucified, buried, and Resurrected. Making that perfect atonement for our sins which were made manifest under the law which you continually speak of. Every post I have seen, you quote the same verses with the same explanations. The verses you post from Paul you pull out one verse out of context then claim he is telling us we are still under the law. When somebody refutes what you say you go back to the same verses again making it a never ending circle. It also does not surprise me that you have so much PRIDE in your own posts. I believe that is a sin therefore you are breaking the law/Torah.
I would also like to add read 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that is the gospel by which we who believe are saved.
God Bless.
I would also like to add read 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that is the gospel by which we who believe are saved.
God Bless.
Hi Bibleguy.
Man-made dogma as oral traditions of men or the written law of God as that which remains against us as the one reforming authority in any generation?
Eph. 2:15 is not referring to the oral traditions of men as a law of men or commandments and doctrines of men .Called a law of the fathers.
It refers to the eternal wage that Christ fulfilled by his work of faith. The wage that has been paid in full refers to that law of liberty of God. It (the gospel)unites the Jew and the Gentile as one bride, one church made of many lively stones, that does make up the spiritual house of God, called the church. With no division between them. Both purified by the same mutual faith of Christ.The work of God..
There are no man made laws that are abolished. The reference is not in regard to man-made laws .
Ephesians 2:15 is reference to the eternal wage of sin as that which was fulfilled by the work of Christ faith’s as an exclusive labor of His love. That work of Christ’s faith abolished the need for us to suffer in our own stead forever and ever never coming to new spirit life again.
He performed that by the “Torah of liberty”. Born again Christians and born again Jews are figured as the freed woman not the woman of bondage to suffer eternally never coming to new spirit life again. .
Christ who is of one mind always does whatsoever His soul pleases. He always performs that which he appoints to us. It is he who can make our hearts soft.
J
am 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
It sounds as if someone is hoping they could be found with a righteousness of their own selves, according to the law that kills. Seeing to violate the least of the Torah is to be found guilty of violating the whole .
Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? “of works?” Nay: but by the law of faith.
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. Rom 7:21............ (the Torah of bondage and death))
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: ...............(the Torah of liberty)
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members...... (the Torah of bondage and death))
Rom 7:24-25 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
The law of God, the law of liberty. The law of the flesh, the law of sin ....self-serving, self-righteous, fading leading to death
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, “even the law of commandments) contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Man-made dogma as oral traditions of men or the written law of God as that which remains against us as the one reforming authority in any generation?
Eph. 2:15 is not referring to the oral traditions of men as a law of men or commandments and doctrines of men .Called a law of the fathers.
It refers to the eternal wage that Christ fulfilled by his work of faith. The wage that has been paid in full refers to that law of liberty of God. It (the gospel)unites the Jew and the Gentile as one bride, one church made of many lively stones, that does make up the spiritual house of God, called the church. With no division between them. Both purified by the same mutual faith of Christ.The work of God..
There are no man made laws that are abolished. The reference is not in regard to man-made laws .
Ephesians 2:15 is reference to the eternal wage of sin as that which was fulfilled by the work of Christ faith’s as an exclusive labor of His love. That work of Christ’s faith abolished the need for us to suffer in our own stead forever and ever never coming to new spirit life again.
He performed that by the “Torah of liberty”. Born again Christians and born again Jews are figured as the freed woman not the woman of bondage to suffer eternally never coming to new spirit life again. .
Christ who is of one mind always does whatsoever His soul pleases. He always performs that which he appoints to us. It is he who can make our hearts soft.
J
am 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
It sounds as if someone is hoping they could be found with a righteousness of their own selves, according to the law that kills. Seeing to violate the least of the Torah is to be found guilty of violating the whole .
Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? “of works?” Nay: but by the law of faith.
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. Rom 7:21............ (the Torah of bondage and death))
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: ...............(the Torah of liberty)
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members...... (the Torah of bondage and death))
Rom 7:24-25 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
The law of God, the law of liberty. The law of the flesh, the law of sin ....self-serving, self-righteous, fading leading to death
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, “even the law of commandments) contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
as it is written :smoke: as it is written
:read:
Ecclesiastes 3:14
I know that whatsoever things God has done, they shall be forever. It is impossible to add to it, and it is impossible to take away from it; and God has done it , that men should fear before Him.
15 That which has been is now; and whatever things are appointed to be have already been; and God will seek out that which is past.
:ty:
godbless us all always
:read:
Ecclesiastes 3:14
I know that whatsoever things God has done, they shall be forever. It is impossible to add to it, and it is impossible to take away from it; and God has done it , that men should fear before Him.
15 That which has been is now; and whatever things are appointed to be have already been; and God will seek out that which is past.
:ty:
godbless us all always
Hi BibleGuy, your are a christian ore a jew? Thats not really clear to me. If you are a christian you should have studied Pauls letter to the galatians. There is given clear the role from the law and the role of justice which we have through christ.
And because this was a big issue also for the believers in the first days there was in meeting(conzil) in Jerusalem. Where the matter of bounding to the law (thora) was the issue. And the result you can read in acts 15, 19-29.
If you are a jew I can understand your point. But it seems you do not understand the gospel. If you are a judaist who claims that Jesus and the law is necessary for to be saved, then i will link you to galatians 1, 6-9.
Hope you will find out the truth.
And because this was a big issue also for the believers in the first days there was in meeting(conzil) in Jerusalem. Where the matter of bounding to the law (thora) was the issue. And the result you can read in acts 15, 19-29.
If you are a jew I can understand your point. But it seems you do not understand the gospel. If you are a judaist who claims that Jesus and the law is necessary for to be saved, then i will link you to galatians 1, 6-9.
Hope you will find out the truth.
He is a disciple of Jesus Christ. Jesus said IF you continue in my teachings, ye are my disciples indeed (John 8:31). Obviously keeping the law is necessary to be saved from breaking the law (in this life). It is by He's grace, power and might that we are able to be forgiven and have power to return back to Him and be obedient to the Law(Torah). By turning back I mean He's people Israel. Gentiles must convert.
Last edited: