Major misconception: What is legalism and what's not legalism.

[WheresEnoch]

All are saved only by grace through true faith, not by any works (Eph 2:8-9).
Good works are the result of salvation, not the means to it.

Ya that was my point. You said that those in the past were saved under the law but somehow not by grace. I was saying that those who lived before Christ were also saved by grace not by perfect obedience apart from Christ.
We don't earn our salvation by works such as repentance and turning from our sin, denying our flesh, picking up our cross daily and following Christ, taking every thought captive, loving our enemies, not showing favoritism and other obedience to God... We do those works and are obedient because we belong to Christ and are born again.

There is a false counterfeit faith (1Jn 2:10), which has no root (Lk 8:13) and does not obey (Mt 7:21-23), and does not save because it is not true faith, which by grace alone saves.

Thank you for these great verses:

1 John 2:10
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.


7 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. 8 At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because[a] the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. 9 Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. 10 Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. 11 But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes
Luke 8
11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away. 14 And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. 15 As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience.


Matthew 7
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

 

[WheresEnoch]

The law we are not under is the Mosaic law, it is not the Decalogue.

The Decalogue we are under is fulfilled in two commandments (Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13: 8, 9, 10).

"Under the law" means to break one is to break them all because the Mosiac law is a unit,
which condemns for any infraction.

"Not under the law" means not under the condemnation of the Mosaic law for imperfect obedience, and also not guilty of breaking them all when you break one.

Christ tells us that the entire law and prophets hangs on those two commandments. Not just the ten commandments

 

[Elin]

1 Co 9:19-21
19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

I think this is saying:

To those who were trying to be justified by the law (the earthly sacrifices and priesthood which are a copies of the heavenly ones), he became as one who was under the law (though he himself is not under the law, apart from Christ, for justification).

I prefer the Scriptures the way they are stated, without additions.

To those who did not know the law, he became as one of them when he preached the gospel to them (tailoring the message to the audience, though he was not outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ).

Yes. . .God's law is the law of Christ (Gal 6:2; Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13: 8, 9, 10).

Paul was not under the Mosaic law, with its curse (Gal 3:10),
He was subject to the law of Christ's teachings, as are all Christians, but neither for salvation nor condemnation, only for sanctification.
All condemnation in the NT is for one reason only (Jn 3:18, 36).

 

[WheresEnoch]

What does Paul himself state in 1Co 9:19-20?

What do you think he is saying?

 

[Elin]

Here is something interesting that appears right before this passage. Paul uses the laws of Moses, "a nonhuman authority/on the authority of God", to say that those who do the lord's work have a right to receive material support from followers of Christ.

1 Corinthians 9
4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife,[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?

Paul is saying he is not speaking on his own human authority, but on the authority of Scripture, and applies to gospel ministers a command given for oxen.

 

[WheresEnoch]

I prefer the Scriptures the way they are stated, without additions.


Yes. . .God's law is the law of Christ (Gal 6:2; Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13: 8, 9, 10).

Paul was not under the Mosaic law, with its curse (Gal 3:10),
He was subject to the law of Christ's teachings, as are all Christians, but neither for salvation nor condemnation, only for sanctification.
All condemnation in the NT is for one reason only (Jn 3:18, 36).

Galatians 3
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[d] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[e] through faith.


This is not saying the law was a curse. It is saying that everyone who tries to be justified by the law apart from Christ is cursed, because no law can be given which will give us life. Paul tell us however that the law itself is:
Romans 7
7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

None of us are saying that we are justified by the law, but that the law is still good and meant to be upheld by those who love God. It hasn't changed, Christ never changed it, Paul never changed it, John never changed it. Sin is still defined by the law of God

 

[Elin]

I prefer the Scriptures the way they are stated, without additions.


Yes. . .God's law is the law of Christ (Gal 6:2; Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13: 8, 9, 10).

Paul was not under the Mosaic law, with its curse (Gal 3:10),
He was subject to the law of Christ's teachings, as are all Christians, but neither for salvation nor condemnation, only for sanctification.
All condemnation in the NT is for one reason only (Jn 3:18, 36).

Galatians 3
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[d] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[e] through faith.

This is not saying the law was a curse. It is saying that everyone who tries to be justified by the law apart from Christ is cursed,

Actually, I prefer what the Scriptures state, rather than alterations to them.

 

[Dan_473]

It's amazing, but sad when I see so many that say (in certain terms) that they are led by the Spirit and the law is written on their hearts but have never taken the time to identfy and confirm that the spirit of persuation is actually God's.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." 2 Corinthians 11:14

How does one identify without confirmation by studying all of God's word instead of just part of what they like. A person can't even confirm the truth of the new without the old. That's fact no matter who disagrees. If the shadow vanishes, there is proof that the light and substance that casts the shadow is also gone.

I wouldn't say I'm led by the spirit, I would say that's the goal... how do you know if you're moving the way the spirit wants? are the fruits of the spirit growing?

 

[Dan_473]

Only one may have been Jewish, and if it weren't the right one, the child is not Jewish.

they may not be Jewish according to current Jewish thinking, but they would still be decended from their ancestors, likely Judah and his kids...

 

[Elin]

they may not be Jewish according to current Jewish thinking, but they would still be decended from their ancestors, likely Judah and his kids...

Not all who descended from Judah are Jewish.

 

[WheresEnoch]

Actually, I prefer what the Scriptures state, rather than alterations to them.

What did I alter?

 

[Biblelogic01]

Not all who descended from Judah are Jewish.

You're speak as if Jewish is just a religion. It's not. I know a few people who claim to be Jewish (because their parents are), but do no claim the religion. Jew means you come from the house of Judah (southern kingdom when Israel split)

 

[WheresEnoch]

You're speak as if Jewish is just a religion. It's not. I know a few people who claim to be Jewish (because their parents are), but do no claim the religion. Jew means you come from the house of Judah (southern kingdom when Israel split)

What's up Biblelogic01?

 

[MarcR]

What “Break Bread” Means

But does this text not say, as many claim today, that the disciples always
held communion every first day of the week? Not at all!

In the first place, it says nothing about anything being done every first day of the week.
It relates the events of this one particular first day of the week, only.

It is not speaking of any customs, but of the events occurring as Paul and his companions
concluded their seven-day visit in passing by this town.

Jesus had introduced the “Lord’s Supper” as part of the Passover, at the beginning of
the annual “days of unleavened bread.” No longer need they kill lambs or eat the roasted
body of Passover lambs, after Christ, our Passover, had been once slain for us.

Yet the Passover was ordained forever (Exodus 12:24).

At His last Passover supper, Jesus substituted the wine as the emblem of His blood,
instead of the blood of the slain lamb. He substituted the unleavened bread for
the roast body of the lamb as the symbol of His body, broken for us.

The disciples continued to observe the Passover annually, now in the form of
“the Lord’s Supper” using only the bread and wine, as a memorial (1?Corinthians 11:24)
of Christ’s death (1?Corinthians 11:26), showing His death till He comes again.

They continued to observe the Days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:6).

This year they had observed the Days of Unleavened Bread and the “Communion” service
at Philippi, after which they came to Troas in five days, where they remained seven days.

After the Sabbath day had ended, at sunset, “upon the first day of the week…
the disciples came together to break bread.”

People have assumed this expression to mean the taking of “Communion.”

But notice! Paul preached, and continued preaching until midnight. They had no opportunity
to stop and “break bread” until then. When Paul “therefore was come up again”—after restoring
the one who had fallen down from the third balcony“and had broken bread, and eaten” Acts 20:11

Note it! “roken bread, and eaten.” This breaking bread was not Communion
—it was simply eating a meal. This expression was commonly used of old to designate a meal.
It still is used in that sense in parts of even the United States.

Notice Luke 22:16, where Jesus was introducing the Lord’s Supper, taking it with His disciples.
He said, “I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

Yet, the day after His resurrection, after walking with the two disciples to Emmaus,
“…?as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them” (Luke 24:30).

Here Jesus “brake bread,” but it was not the Lord’s Supper,
which He said He would not take again. It was a meal—“he sat at meat.”

Notice Acts 2:46. The disciples, “continuing daily with one accord in the temple,
and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness?.…”
Here again, “breaking bread” means eating a meal. Not on the first day of the week, but daily.

Again, when Paul was shipwrecked on the voyage to Rome, the sailors had been fasting out
of fright. But “Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day
that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing.

Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health?.… And when he had thus spoken,
he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it,
he began to eat” (Acts 27:33-35).

Here Paul broke bread to give to unconverted sailors who were hungry.

The truth is, nowhere in the Bible is the expression “breaking of bread,” or “to break bread,”
used to signify observance of “the Lord’s Supper.” In all these texts it means, simply, eating a meal.

So, when we read in Acts 20:7, 11, “the disciples came together to break bread,”
and how Paul had “broken bread, and eaten,” we know by Scripture interpretation
it referred only to eating food as a meal, not to a Communion service.

I agree with you far more often than not; but on this I disagree on several counts.

First, the fact that Paul preached both indicates a worship service; and suggests that preaching at such gatherings was common practice.

Historical evidence confirms that the gatherings from house to house on the first day of the week were common practice; and that they included both preaching and teaching.

The bread and the cup at the last supper were NOT unique to the passover. Nu chapter 28 shows their true significance.

 

[Jeff_56]

Christ tells us that the entire law and prophets hangs on those two commandments. Not just the ten commandments

and actually , probably?, they always did..... not just after some point in time....

 

[Jeff_56]

You're speak as if Jewish is just a religion. It's not. I know a few people who claim to be Jewish (because their parents are), but do no claim the religion. Jew means you come from the house of Judah (southern kingdom when Israel split)

and as yahshua says, everyone who is grafted in is Jewish, everyone who is a Jew inwardly is a Jew, not those who are Jewish outwardly are all, and likewise all who are circumcized of heart, not of the flesh.

so simple when yahweh says so and does it.

 

[Elin]

Christ tells us that the entire law and prophets hangs on those two commandments. Not just the ten commandments

Agreed. . .but the NT epistles' teachings on the "law" refers to the Mosaic regulations
(Eph 2:15; Col 2:14; Heb 7:18-19),
while reference to love "fulfilling the law" (Ro 13: 8, 9, 10) refers to the Decalogue.

 

[Dan_473]

Non-responsive. . .

You did not show where James advised Paul on how to "fit in."

James, and the elders, (I see after re-reading) say, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law."
so, there are Jewish believers zealous for the law in James' area...


21 They have been informed about you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs. 22 What then?"



here's the 'fit in' advice...
"do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them, and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses for them, that they may shave their heads. Then all will know that there is no truth in the things that they have been informed about you"


and the goal of the advice...
but that you yourself also walk keeping the law.

so, Jewish believers in the area will see Paul as 'one of them'...

 

[Dan_473]

They relate to the law of Moses in your post.

my point in the post was about Jewish believers keeping the law... are you saying that Jewish believers were or weren't keeping the law? or something else?

 

[Dan_473]

Well, now that I'm been reminded of the Scriptural location of the incident in question, there are several things to note about it:

First of all, Paul was exercising his principle of Ro 14:1-8--regarding those whose faith was weak in their fondness for the shadows when the substance/reality of the shadows had come--when he did not command that Jews abandon the ceremonial law, including food sacrificed to idols.

yes, it seems that Paul and James don't tell Jewish believers not to keep the law...

Secondly, and most interesting of all, his going to the Temple for the purification rights in order to please the Jews (Ac 21:26) was the very thing that provoked the Jews (vv. 27-28).

I think James' advice is good, there's just a miscommunication at the temple...

And thirdly, when the Christian Jews saw how unbelieving Jews treated Paul (v.27), it helped strengthen their weak faith and separate them from the Law.

stonger faith is always good... I'm not seeing it in this passage... but that's my take...