Why the "NT-only, grace-only" theology is off the mark

[cfultz3]

No, the question is which Laws are the Laws of the New Covenant. No one is quesitoning which Covenant. There are those who claim that the Law has been changed (fulfilled) and we do not have to keep it anymore.

I should have said, "I believe that the discussion". My fault, but I am sure you got it right.

Which Laws: the moral laws are what we keep, the rest is and will be fulfilled by Christ.

we do not have to keep it anymore: the one who places himself under the Law as a Covenant with Him has Christ to no prevail. How is it possible to be under covenant with God under two covenants? If you are under covenant with God under the Law, then let us accept what it says: Christ is no prevail to that one. That means: ?

 

[john832]

I should have said, "I believe that the discussion". My fault, but I am sure you got it right.

Which Laws: the moral laws are what we keep, the rest is and will be fulfilled by Christ.

we do not have to keep it anymore: the one who places himself under the Law as a Covenant with Him has Christ to no prevail. How is it possible to be under covenant with God under two covenants? If you are under covenant with God under the Law, then let us accept what it says: Christ is no prevail to that one. That means: ?

Show me the scriptures.

 

[cfultz3]

Show me the scriptures.

All of the New Covenant speaks of how love fulfills the Law and you ask for Scriptures? (Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avail anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love.) Faith is by love, not by outward appearance ordained by ordinances.

Have you not heard: Gal 5:1-4 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Surely, we cannot be under two covenants with the Lord. I really do not want to lose Christ and the salvational effect He has on those who follow Him.

 

[phil112]

Show me the scriptures.

Why do you ask for something that has been given you repeatedly, only to have been repeatedly rejected by you?

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

 

[danschance]

Show me the scriptures.

John, I have posted these scriptures on other threads. Yet if you insist I will be happy to post them again.
Christ came to fulfill the law not do away with it.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matt. 5:17

We keep the moral laws of Christ
1) Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Gal. 6:2
2)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. 1 Cor 9:21

we do not have to keep it anymore: the one who places himself under the Law as a Covenant with Him has Christ to no prevail. How is it possible to be under covenant with God under two covenants? If you are under covenant with God under the Law, then let us accept what it says: Christ is no prevail to that one. That means: ?

But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:6

 

[john832]

I should have said, "I believe that the discussion". My fault, but I am sure you got it right.

Which Laws: the moral laws are what we keep, the rest is and will be fulfilled by Christ.

we do not have to keep it anymore: the one who places himself under the Law as a Covenant with Him has Christ to no prevail. How is it possible to be under covenant with God under two covenants? If you are under covenant with God under the Law, then let us accept what it says: Christ is no prevail to that one. That means: ?

So, we are not under this Commandment?

Exo 20:13 "You shall not murder.

Exo 20:15 "You shall not steal.

or this one?

Exo 20:7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

You do this things regularly?

 

[john832]

Why do you ask for something that has been given you repeatedly, only to have been repeatedly rejected by you?

Yep, I reject the idea that a nebulous love commandment has replaced the Ten Commandments.

How does one love their neighbor? Can you explain that to me?

 

[danschance]

I am a believer that the Law of God is forever, because that is how we know what sin is. No one will be robbing banks in heaven

The moral laws of God are forever. The ceremonial laws have been fulfilled. That is why circumcision of the foreskin is now circumcision of the heart.

But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:6

 

[danschance]

No, the question is which Laws are the Laws of the New Covenant. No one is quesitoning which Covenant. There are those who claim that the Law has been changed (fulfilled) and we do not have to keep it anymore.

How about this verse as an answer?
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:6

 

[danschance]

danschance, if as you imply, grace negates "law," does this mean that sin is no longer "...the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4)? Does this mean was John confused when reminding us that "...sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4)?Do you not realize that your interpretation of "law" negates the entire Law of the Lord, and therefore the entirety of Psalm 1 and all 176 verses in Psalm 119. Yes, the entirety of Psalm 119, the longest chapter in scripture, is on the Law of the Lord. And you dismiss this, as though it was never more than some religious hocus pocus. Psalm 1:2, speaking of the righteous, says "...his delight is in the law of the Lord." Please consider that "law," in the NT epistles must be interpreted in context. And context tells us that Paul was not contradicting John, and John was not contradicting Paul. The bottom line here is that your broad interpretation of "law" in Paul's epistles contradicts what John and other witnesses say regarding it.

I do not believe I have said "grace negates the law" as I do not say such things. Instead I say things like this:

But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:6

 

[danschance]

Paul makes mention of many “laws.” In fact, he makes mention of at least seven.

1) The Law of God (Romans 3:31; 7:22-25; 8:7)

2) The Law of Sin (Romans 7:23-25)

3) The Law of Sin and Death (Romans 8:2)

4) The Law of the Spiritof Life (Romans 8:2)

5) The Law of Faith (Romans 3:27)

6) The Law of Righteousness (Romans 9:31)

7) The Law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21)


1 Corinthians 9:21
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.

1Co 9:21 (CJB) With those who live outside the framework of Torah, I put myself in the position of someone outside the Torah in order to win those outside the Torah — although I myself am not outside the framework of God's Torah but within the framework of Torah as upheld by the Messiah.

In a moment in which Paul is talking about how he puts himself in the shoes of others in an attempt to help them better understand, Paul states that he is not outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ. So, He is in the Law of God and Law of Christ at the same time...meaning what? They are the same thing.

Right here, Paul clarifies that the instructions our Messiah gave us are the same as the Law of God.

Yeshua/Jesus only followed the law of God, and he is to be the example that we follow, and we are to walk the same way that he walked.

Therefore, to follow the Law of Christ is the same as following the Law of God.

Regarding the law Paul states this:

But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:6
So your assertion that Paul is an observant Jew contradicts his own statements.

 

[danschance]

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...-mark-post1375882.html?highlight=#post1375882

I answered. I guess what I replied was too much meat. Perhaps it would be best if we limited our discussions. Shalom

I call it to much. Long post are less effective as people in general have no desire to waste time reading posts that resemble novels. If you want to flatter yourself by calling it too much meat I can't stop you. I call it the wall of text. There was a a man who posted many questions to me and consumed much of my time. I eventually told him If you ask me 100 questions I will only answer one to three of your questions. My reason for stating this is simply because answers are longer than questions and had I responded to all of his it would of been a waste of my time.

I understand some like to make long posts, but those I simply tend to ignore or seek to boil them down.

 

[phil112]

Yep, I reject the idea that a nebulous love commandment has replaced the Ten Commandments.

How does one love their neighbor? Can you explain that to me?

Not until you circumcise your ears, I can't.

 

[danschance]

Yep, just like right here...

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 7:25 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.

What he says is that he is not under the penalty of the Law. He is not under the death sentence for breaking it because through grace he has been forgiven for transgressions.

John that did not prove paul was a torah observant Jew. Paul was called an apostle to the gentiles. He spent most of his ministry serving gentiles. The law above that you assume is torah is not. He is serving the law of Christ. law of sin is a reference that is not under a specif law which forces him to sin but rather a reference to the fact that we have a sin nature. Here is something else Paul wrote that proves conclusively that he is not torah observant.

But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:6

Please note the final nail in this argument "not in the old way of the written code" is a clear declaration that Paul is not a torah observant Jew but that he was (past tense) a torah observant Jew. "not in the old way of the written code" is a very clear reference to the Mosaic laws.

Or you can try to bury your head deeply in the sand and hope this verse goes away so you can once again believe the fairy tale that Paul was a torah observant jew.

 

[danschance]

I whole heartedly agree...

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

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

Yes John and include this verse in that also.

But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:6

 

[cfultz3]

So, we are not under this Commandment?

John,

as a matter of proper communication, it should be understood that before one replies to a post, that person has mind what he or she has said previously. As a matter of grammar ":" means a list follows the statement. If you would, read your posts and you will see that you are the one who said, "we do not have to keep it anymore:".

Exo 20:13 "You shall not murder.

Love will cause no harm to his neighbor.

Exo 20:15 "You shall not steal.

Love will cause no harm to his neighbor.

or this one?

Exo 20:7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Love will cause no harm to his neighbor.

You do this things regularly?

We are not under the Law as a Covenant with God. Although, under Christ's Covenant, we do have that LAWGIVER. So, really, do we not keep the Law if the One we follow is the LAWGIVER HIMSELF? Yet, those who are under the Law have one thing missing, someone said in Scripture that they did not have this faith (in Christ) mixed in, but only had fleshly obedience.

However, it would seem to me that if you have even glazed over with blurry eyes my posts, then you would have seen that I have said numerous times that we are to obey God's will and this post would have been unnecessary.

I really do not mind talking, but at least read what I have said before coming to this sort of conclusion which is totally contrary to everything which I have been saying.

 

[danschance]

James shows us this...

Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Yes, this is another favorite verse of those who want to support the idea that Christians are to be Torah observant, but it simply proves the very opposite of what they wish to prove when one looks at the context.

Here is the greater context as I am sure you will agree.

Faith Without Works Is Dead14What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[SUP]b[/SUP] is that? 17So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.18But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

Please notice what a work of faith is in this context.
Here is a list of them:
1) Abraham placing his son Issac on the altar. (vs 21)
2) Abraham believing in God and it was counted to him as righteousness. (vs. 23)
3) Rahab the prostitute was justified when she brought the messengers into home and sent them safely away. (vs. 25)

You are guilty of twisting the scripture into what it is not. A work of faith is not observing the torah. A work of faith is an external expression of the faith which lies within your heart and not simple observance of a law.

 

[WomanLovesTX]

John, I have posted these scriptures on other threads. Yet if you insist I will be happy to post them again.
Christ came to fulfill the law not do away with it.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matt. 5:17

We keep the moral laws of Christ
1) Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Gal. 6:2
2)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. 1 Cor 9:21

we do not have to keep it anymore: the one who places himself under the Law as a Covenant with Him has Christ to no prevail. How is it possible to be under covenant with God under two covenants? If you are under covenant with God under the Law, then let us accept what it says: Christ is no prevail to that one. That means: ?

But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:6

How is it we still have rainbows?

 

[WomanLovesTX]

Here is a thread on the 7 everlasting covenants.

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...nant-theology-vs-7-everlasting-covenants.html

 

[danschance]

How is it we still have rainbows?

Because God doesn't break a promise.

I have placed my rainbow in the clouds. It is the sign of my covenant with you and with all the earth. Gen 9:13