God's 'Transition' For law To Grace

[Dino246]

My point was that being a Jew or a Gentile is not revenant to whether followers of God should seek by faith to walk in His way. However, Paul did not say that being a Jew or a Gentile is no longer recant, just that it doesn't give someone a higher status when it comes to being in Christ.

Okay... we're starting to see some agreement.

While the covenant was inclusively between God and Israel and Israel is inclusive of Gentiles should have faith in the God of Israel. In Jeremiah 31:31, the New Covenant was only made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel, so it is only through becoming joined to Israel through faith in Christ that Gentiles are able to partake of the New Covenant.

That sounds a bit convoluted but I think you have the correct concept.

The point is still that Gentiles become part of Israel through faith in the God of Israel regardless of the attitude that some Jews have had towards Gentiles and vice versa.

Agreed, with clarification: specifically, through faith in Christ. Jews believe in the God of Israel, but they don't believe in Christ.

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 the Mosaic 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 message.

Not sure what you're saying here.

The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that can't currently be followed. When the Israelites were exiled to Babylon the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to the Mosaic Law, which contained instructions in regard to temple practice that couldn't be followed because the temple had just been destroyed, so God nevertheless honored their obedience to the laws that they could obey.

I think you're making a doctrinal statement from narrative rather than from clear Scripture. There is no Scripture excusing Jews from attending Temple services just because the Temple has been destroyed. The Law is merciless in this regard.

There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being God's way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Psalms 103:7, Psalms 119:1-3, and many others.

Nevertheless, Christians are not under the Law as given at Sinai. This is the key point of "rightly dividing the Scripture": determining which parts directly apply today, and which are written for our understanding of the past.

That definition is in accordance with the biblical definition.

We disagree on this.

Someone's trustworthiness is shown by them acting in accordance with the truth that I have placed in them just as someone's faithfulness is shown by then acting in according with the faith that I have placed in them. This is pretty straightforward and is in accordance with the biblical definition.

Again, we disagree.

In Acts 3:25-26, Jesus was set in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness, so again being turned from our wickedness is the way to believe in the promise, which is not salvation by works. Salvation by works is the position that we need to have first done a certain amount of works in order to earn our salvation as the result.

"Salvation by works" is the view that a person must do anything other than believe on Jesus Christ in order to be saved. "A certain amount of works" is only one form thereof. If you believe that a person must do certain things (other than believe) in order to be saved, you believe in salvation by works. What you describe as "following God's instructions" sounds like salvation by works.

If you believe that "works" are the expression of the faith you claim to have, and that they are the fruit of saving faith, then your view is consistent with the teaching of Scripture.