Why does the Law cause contention among professing Christians?
- Thread starter just-me
- 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.
Circumcision of the flesh and of the heart are two different things. One could be circumcised in the heart, not circumcised in the flesh, and be cut off from Israel.
The reason I have been pressing the fleshly circumcision issue is to confront the confusion that is being sown here by some who teach that all of GOD's commandments that he ever spoke are to be obeyed, without making a distinction between obedience to the spirit and obedience to the letter.
According to Paul, it is impossible to abide in grace while trying to please GOD by becoming circumcised as a means of obedience to the law of Moses. This alone invalidates the claim that all of GOD's commandments that he ever spoke are to be obeyed, unless, of course, one is willing to say that Paul didn't speak the commands of Christ.
I'm also pressing the issue because of the interpretation of Matthew 5:19 that is continually used by some to try to make it look like Christ wants us to follow the law of Moses.
Therefore whoever abolishes one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever keeps them and teaches them, this person will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19
Paul taught against obeying the commandment of fleshly circumcision as a means of obedience to the law of Moses, and said it was nothing. So if the aforementioned interpretation is true, Paul will be considered among the least in the kingdom of heaven.
I simply want these people to honestly confront the inconsistencies and contradictions of what they are teaching.
The reason I have been pressing the fleshly circumcision issue is to confront the confusion that is being sown here by some who teach that all of GOD's commandments that he ever spoke are to be obeyed, without making a distinction between obedience to the spirit and obedience to the letter.
According to Paul, it is impossible to abide in grace while trying to please GOD by becoming circumcised as a means of obedience to the law of Moses. This alone invalidates the claim that all of GOD's commandments that he ever spoke are to be obeyed, unless, of course, one is willing to say that Paul didn't speak the commands of Christ.
I'm also pressing the issue because of the interpretation of Matthew 5:19 that is continually used by some to try to make it look like Christ wants us to follow the law of Moses.
Therefore whoever abolishes one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever keeps them and teaches them, this person will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19
Paul taught against obeying the commandment of fleshly circumcision as a means of obedience to the law of Moses, and said it was nothing. So if the aforementioned interpretation is true, Paul will be considered among the least in the kingdom of heaven.
I simply want these people to honestly confront the inconsistencies and contradictions of what they are teaching.
Here's a perfect example > http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/76483-hebrew-roots-cult-jim-pruitt.html#post1240722
I'm glad you brought this up, as my husband and I were speaking of it just yesterday.
In absolutely no way am I attempting to convert Torah keepers.
I'm only trying, in my feeble way, to share the great and glorious Gospel of Christ Jesus.
I've hesitated to share this, but here goes.
We have old friends from church who became Torah keepers...at first.
They are good and dear friends with whom we raised our children, and we visited each other often after they moved away.
They have in the years that have passed changed their names and converted to Judaism.
I find that immeasurably sad.
I don't mean to apply that to anyone here, or imply their end will be the same.
But I see it as a sort of warning. The husband has a huge website that I guess is pretty popular.
I hope it's okay for me to point out you don't seem to reply to posters who agree with you
with rebukes and warnings about causing contention.
But it's entirely possible I haven't read everything you've ever written. (haha)
I don't mean to create strife. I do realize I will convert no one.
Proverbs is replete with warnings about strife and quarreling.
The NT also has warnings for me, and I try to bear them in mind.
(2 Tim 2:23-25; Jas 3:14-18; Jas 4:1; 1 Tim 1:5-7; Rom 14:19; etc.)
I don't think that in trying to see someone else's heart we should ignore false misrepresentations of the Word of God, though.
But I do agree the fruit of the Holy Spirit should be evident, and if I have not done that, I am sorry.
In what I hope is my last so personal post,
ellie
In absolutely no way am I attempting to convert Torah keepers.
I'm only trying, in my feeble way, to share the great and glorious Gospel of Christ Jesus.
I've hesitated to share this, but here goes.
We have old friends from church who became Torah keepers...at first.
They are good and dear friends with whom we raised our children, and we visited each other often after they moved away.
They have in the years that have passed changed their names and converted to Judaism.
I find that immeasurably sad.
I don't mean to apply that to anyone here, or imply their end will be the same.
But I see it as a sort of warning. The husband has a huge website that I guess is pretty popular.
I hope it's okay for me to point out you don't seem to reply to posters who agree with you
with rebukes and warnings about causing contention.
But it's entirely possible I haven't read everything you've ever written. (haha)
I don't mean to create strife. I do realize I will convert no one.
Proverbs is replete with warnings about strife and quarreling.
The NT also has warnings for me, and I try to bear them in mind.
(2 Tim 2:23-25; Jas 3:14-18; Jas 4:1; 1 Tim 1:5-7; Rom 14:19; etc.)
I don't think that in trying to see someone else's heart we should ignore false misrepresentations of the Word of God, though.
But I do agree the fruit of the Holy Spirit should be evident, and if I have not done that, I am sorry.
In what I hope is my last so personal post,
ellie
Thanks for sharing that. I revere the Mosaic Law, not because I am righteous by it at all. There comes to me a certain comfort when I find the guts to confess a bad attitude that is revealed to me, by either a story or reading about people, or an individual that was made aware of an infraction. The heart of repentance manifested in the Bible is instruction about what not to do, and what to do. I like reading about the Levitical temple laws, and what the priests wore, that can directly relate (in detail) to our Savior Jesus Christ, and myself as the New Testament calls a presentation of the living sacrifice. (Romans 12:1) Without that scripture being related to the Temple worship, I would have no idea what Paul was really saying.
In short, I see the righteousness of God by the law, and know that it’s vain to seek mine by it. If I didn’t study the law, I would have very little information as to the mighty, and beautiful character of God.
I was raised in a protestant church, and still associate myself as such. But as of the last 20 years, the Mosaic Law is utterly fascinating for me to research. There is much that I was missing in the past. I don’t see the law as legalistic, because it’s not lording over me. As far as contention, when I respond to people I take 3 things into consideration.
Romans 15:4 (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
1. I like to mention what I have learned from the law, and all of God’s Word for that matter.
1 Peter 3:15 (KJV)
[SUP]15 [/SUP]But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
2. If I am asked a legitimate question, I am instructed by a Jew (Peter), through the Spirit of the Word to respond. Usually, it is rebutted.
2 Timothy 2:23 (KJV)
[SUP]23 [/SUP]But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
Titus 3:9 (KJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
3. After being convinced that others are not wanting to listen to my answers, or if the question they ask are leading questions to cause argument, I will either show them that I know what they are doing, or just ignore them, but not permanently.
God bless all who have argued with me for I am not what, or who you think I am. Hopefully, you will see, but maybe some have seen, but are resentful of people like myself that endorse the Mosaic law as good, just, and holy as Paul did. You just haven’t concluded that I do not see the Mosaic Law as beneficial without being legalistic. I hope this response to psychomom helps all to see my heart, for I’m an open book, or at least try to be.
I remember starting a thread called “I’m sick of arguing.” What happened was that 1 person posted on that thread saying they refused to study with me any longer, because I had said the law was necessary for salvation by explaining the schoolmaster in Galatians 3:24-25. So that thread, ironically, started an argument over the same thing as here. I asked the moderators to shut it down, and they did because the contention was so great.
It’s not a coincidence; I see it as a hunt. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. Look at the threads started recently about Hebrew cultist and related topics. I think there either is a fear, or a vengeance. Categorizing people before one really knows their heart, and beliefs is abominable in the sight of God.
This is completely incorrect.
Not one jot or one tittle of the curses or condemnation of the law is taken away when men seek to obey the law themselves.
The only way a person can escape from this condemnation is through Christ. And Christ Alone.
If you decide intellectually that you must go back to the Law after coming to Christ then you don't understand what the Lord has done for you or what Christianity is.
You're basically trying to mix Judaism with Christianity. Old wine with New wine. You need to choose one. Be Hot or Cold. Not lukewarm.
Not one jot or one tittle of the curses or condemnation of the law is taken away when men seek to obey the law themselves.
The only way a person can escape from this condemnation is through Christ. And Christ Alone.
If you decide intellectually that you must go back to the Law after coming to Christ then you don't understand what the Lord has done for you or what Christianity is.
You're basically trying to mix Judaism with Christianity. Old wine with New wine. You need to choose one. Be Hot or Cold. Not lukewarm.
I didn't see anything incorrect about JaumeJ post
You did bring up an interesting subject however; Wine and wineskins of the Old and New Covenant. I studied that recently, and this is what I found.
Mark 2:22 (CJB)
[SUP]22 [/SUP]And no one puts new wine in old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins will be ruined. Rather, new wine is for freshly prepared wineskins.”
With the making of wine, there is a fermentation process that causes expansion. Old wineskins have already expanded in the making of wine, plus they are old and have become formed and somewhat brittle. They cannot be used for making new wine. Mark 2:22 focuses on two things, the old and new wine, and the old and new skins. What do they represent? Which one represents the Old, and New Covenant, the wine or the skins? So I asked myself the simple question, what contains the wine that has becomes old? So I started to concentrate on what was still good. It’s the wine of course.
Song of Songs 7:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved.
Matthew 13:52 (KJV)
[SUP]52 [/SUP]Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
So the Old and New wine are not the covenant, of the agreement, it has to be the skins that represent the Old and New Covenants. According to scripture, the wine, both old and new are still ingestible, and good for consumption. What is it that I am free to consume?
I am given Spiritual food without having to pay for it. (Isaiah 55:1)
I have information to know of Righteous judgments that we cannot escape. (Psalm 60:3)
And by the will of God, I will be given continuous new blessings. (Isaiah 65:8)
These are all promises contained in the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant.
1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Hebrews 8:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:13 (CJB)
13 By using the term, "new," he has made the first covenant "old"; and something being made old, something in the process of aging, is on its way to vanishing altogether.
The answer is really quite simple. Drink the wine of the Old Covenant that is still good before you throw away the wineskins. It is such a waste for God to have made an agreement with the Israelites, and blame His Words as the cause of its failure. It isn’t the wine that is no good after it gets old, it’s the wineskin that can’t be used anymore.
I looked up on the internet about this principle of making wine, and this is what I found.
Fermented and unfermented wine in the Bible: Bible Study Discussions with Gary Panell
Quote: “A new wineskin is strong, stretchable and will contain the fermenting wine, allowing containment so the pressure can be let out when the wineskin owner realizes it needs to be out-gassed. An old wine skin will not allow for this. It will crack and the wine will be lost. Another beautiful analogy. Jesus' new covenant can't be contained by the old covenant.”
I find a flaw in the last sentence that leads to misdirection when most people minister about the covenants. Look closely at what this person says in the last sentence of this quote. He is actually saying that the old wineskin can’t contain a new wineskin, and there is no mention of the wine anymore. With this analogy, all the wine is gone, both the old and the new. All that you have left is an empty container.
You did bring up an interesting subject however; Wine and wineskins of the Old and New Covenant. I studied that recently, and this is what I found.
Mark 2:22 (CJB)
[SUP]22 [/SUP]And no one puts new wine in old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins will be ruined. Rather, new wine is for freshly prepared wineskins.”
With the making of wine, there is a fermentation process that causes expansion. Old wineskins have already expanded in the making of wine, plus they are old and have become formed and somewhat brittle. They cannot be used for making new wine. Mark 2:22 focuses on two things, the old and new wine, and the old and new skins. What do they represent? Which one represents the Old, and New Covenant, the wine or the skins? So I asked myself the simple question, what contains the wine that has becomes old? So I started to concentrate on what was still good. It’s the wine of course.
Song of Songs 7:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved.
Matthew 13:52 (KJV)
[SUP]52 [/SUP]Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
So the Old and New wine are not the covenant, of the agreement, it has to be the skins that represent the Old and New Covenants. According to scripture, the wine, both old and new are still ingestible, and good for consumption. What is it that I am free to consume?
I am given Spiritual food without having to pay for it. (Isaiah 55:1)
I have information to know of Righteous judgments that we cannot escape. (Psalm 60:3)
And by the will of God, I will be given continuous new blessings. (Isaiah 65:8)
These are all promises contained in the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant.
1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Hebrews 8:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:13 (CJB)
13 By using the term, "new," he has made the first covenant "old"; and something being made old, something in the process of aging, is on its way to vanishing altogether.
The answer is really quite simple. Drink the wine of the Old Covenant that is still good before you throw away the wineskins. It is such a waste for God to have made an agreement with the Israelites, and blame His Words as the cause of its failure. It isn’t the wine that is no good after it gets old, it’s the wineskin that can’t be used anymore.
I looked up on the internet about this principle of making wine, and this is what I found.
Fermented and unfermented wine in the Bible: Bible Study Discussions with Gary Panell
Quote: “A new wineskin is strong, stretchable and will contain the fermenting wine, allowing containment so the pressure can be let out when the wineskin owner realizes it needs to be out-gassed. An old wine skin will not allow for this. It will crack and the wine will be lost. Another beautiful analogy. Jesus' new covenant can't be contained by the old covenant.”
I find a flaw in the last sentence that leads to misdirection when most people minister about the covenants. Look closely at what this person says in the last sentence of this quote. He is actually saying that the old wineskin can’t contain a new wineskin, and there is no mention of the wine anymore. With this analogy, all the wine is gone, both the old and the new. All that you have left is an empty container.
It causes contention because some people simply MUST argue and show how smart (they think) they are without even reading the subject matter.
Case in point: Leviticus 19:15 "Do not be unjust in judging - show neither partiality to the poor nor deference to the mighty, but with justice judge your neighbor." Wow! Now there is something to argue about!
Or maybe this: Leviticus 19:23 "When you enter the land and plant various kinds of fruit trees, you are to regard its fruit as forbidden - for three years it will be forbidden to you and not eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, for praising ADONAI. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, so that it will produce even more for you; I am ADONAI your God."
The biggest cause by far is that certain people can't understand (or refuse to acknowledge) the difference between revering the entire Bible, even the Law given to Moses, and saying we need to abide by the law to be saved, and accusing others of trying to teach that. It is willful misinterpretation - and that is sin. Using the excuse that the law is all condemnation is just plain stupid.
Bottom line: Contention destroys edification of the body.
Case in point: Leviticus 19:15 "Do not be unjust in judging - show neither partiality to the poor nor deference to the mighty, but with justice judge your neighbor." Wow! Now there is something to argue about!
Or maybe this: Leviticus 19:23 "When you enter the land and plant various kinds of fruit trees, you are to regard its fruit as forbidden - for three years it will be forbidden to you and not eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, for praising ADONAI. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, so that it will produce even more for you; I am ADONAI your God."
The biggest cause by far is that certain people can't understand (or refuse to acknowledge) the difference between revering the entire Bible, even the Law given to Moses, and saying we need to abide by the law to be saved, and accusing others of trying to teach that. It is willful misinterpretation - and that is sin. Using the excuse that the law is all condemnation is just plain stupid.
Bottom line: Contention destroys edification of the body.
This is what causes contention! JaumeJ said nothing wrong. And you should be ashamed of twisting what he said to create things to argue, and making unfounded accusations toward him or anybody trying to help others see the truth of the entire Bible.
As I just said:..."some people simply MUST argue and show how smart (they think) they are without even reading the subject matter.
Case in point:Leviticus 19:15 "Do not be unjust in judging - show neither partiality to the poor nor deference to the mighty, but with justice judge your neighbor." Wow! Now there is something to argue about!
Or maybe this: Leviticus 19:23 "When you enter the land and plant various kinds of fruit trees, you are to regard its fruit as forbidden - for three years it will be forbidden to you and not eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, for praising ADONAI. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, so that it will produce even more for you; I am ADONAI your God."
The biggest cause by far is that certain people can't understand (or refuse to acknowledge) the difference between revering the entire Bible, even the Law given to Moses, and saying we need to abide by the law to be saved, and accusing others of trying to teach that. It is willful misinterpretation - and that is sin. Using the excuse that the law is all condemnation is just plain stupid.
Bottom line: Contention destroys edification of the body. "
I know it might seem hard to believe, but there are people who come here trying to learn.
As I just said:..."some people simply MUST argue and show how smart (they think) they are without even reading the subject matter.
Case in point:Leviticus 19:15 "Do not be unjust in judging - show neither partiality to the poor nor deference to the mighty, but with justice judge your neighbor." Wow! Now there is something to argue about!
Or maybe this: Leviticus 19:23 "When you enter the land and plant various kinds of fruit trees, you are to regard its fruit as forbidden - for three years it will be forbidden to you and not eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, for praising ADONAI. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, so that it will produce even more for you; I am ADONAI your God."
The biggest cause by far is that certain people can't understand (or refuse to acknowledge) the difference between revering the entire Bible, even the Law given to Moses, and saying we need to abide by the law to be saved, and accusing others of trying to teach that. It is willful misinterpretation - and that is sin. Using the excuse that the law is all condemnation is just plain stupid.
Bottom line: Contention destroys edification of the body. "
I know it might seem hard to believe, but there are people who come here trying to learn.
I have mentioned the following one time in the past. This is the basis of the contention over the law. Some people believe that the law was destroyed at Calvary. Others believe it was the flesh that was destroyed. In essence, if the law was destroyed at Calvary, we are actually saying that God’s Word was destroyed. Then people would say, yes, that is true for Jesus is the Word. Nevertheless, if Jesus came in the flesh, and rose from the dead, the flesh has been destroyed and Jesus continues to live. This is the conflict. Some see only the flesh is connected to the law, henceforth being under the law. Others see the law as Spiritual, and not condemning, henceforth being free from the connection to the flesh. So, to finalize my thought, connecting the law with the physical only is always a negative. Connecting the law to the Spiritual is always the positive. So until we get over this conundrum, negative comments will always be made.
2 Corinthians 1:20-21 (KJV)
[SUP]20 [/SUP]For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
2 Corinthians 1:20-21 (KJV)
[SUP]20 [/SUP]For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
Are you able to confess to me that you are saved by the Blood of Yeshua, and yet you are so disrespectful of your fellows in Yeshua? This is a most legitimate question since this confession is our spiritual identification.
Years before you were given to your mother to birth, I was given to walk in the Holy Spirt sharing the Word with all who would hear me, actually with all who were sent to me to hear me, and you have advised others, including myself, to walk in the Holy Spirit. You are quite a judge, but you prove not to be much in the way of being family in Yeshua.
If you cannot bear His Hebrew name, you may confess His Blood in the name Jesus. Jesus Christ, Yeshua, is my Lord and Savior, and His Blood has saved me from a life of sin. Yes, He is Lord, amen.
Years before you were given to your mother to birth, I was given to walk in the Holy Spirt sharing the Word with all who would hear me, actually with all who were sent to me to hear me, and you have advised others, including myself, to walk in the Holy Spirit. You are quite a judge, but you prove not to be much in the way of being family in Yeshua.
If you cannot bear His Hebrew name, you may confess His Blood in the name Jesus. Jesus Christ, Yeshua, is my Lord and Savior, and His Blood has saved me from a life of sin. Yes, He is Lord, amen.
Its called contending for the faith. The law is not of faith. It has nothing to do with intelligence. We are specifically told not to lean on our own understanding. It has everything to do with what christianity is and what it isn't.
What Jaumej does is attempt to blend judaism with christianity. What you and just-me tries to do is blend judaism with christianity. What people have tried to do since the very beginning of christianity is blend judaism with christianity. They aren't to be blended. That is what is being explained with the old wine and new wine. It is very simple.
Paul describes what is being done when people blend judaism with christianity. It is the leaven of the pharisees that we are to beware of. It is not of faith.
This will always cause contention because christians, like Paul, will point out the error of Peter even in public.
This is all really just a side track to faith and grace. Which is a trick of the enemy.
For people who come here trying to learn the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. After we have come to Christ we are no longer under law.
Galatians 3:24-26
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
What Jaumej does is attempt to blend judaism with christianity. What you and just-me tries to do is blend judaism with christianity. What people have tried to do since the very beginning of christianity is blend judaism with christianity. They aren't to be blended. That is what is being explained with the old wine and new wine. It is very simple.
Paul describes what is being done when people blend judaism with christianity. It is the leaven of the pharisees that we are to beware of. It is not of faith.
This will always cause contention because christians, like Paul, will point out the error of Peter even in public.
This is all really just a side track to faith and grace. Which is a trick of the enemy.
For people who come here trying to learn the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. After we have come to Christ we are no longer under law.
Galatians 3:24-26
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Fear........ fear is what I think is causing contention, being manifested by leading questions and the labeling of others. The reason I believe this, is because, for several months, I have seen the truth presented from ALL the Word of God, as being relevant, over and over again. When scripture refutes an incomplete faith, then there is no other alternative but to equate individuals at fault rather than the Word of God. The only thing that can be done then, is to call the Law ineffective for those that believe, and label "IT" (the law) as nothing but a curse.
The Lord didn't give us a spirit of fear. What the Lord Jesus has given us is righteousness and justification that we can't establish by following the law.
Galatians 3:10-14
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
[SUP]14 [/SUP]That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Galatians 3:10-14
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
[SUP]14 [/SUP]That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
I like this verse because a schoolmaster leads to Christ. We can't say "been there, done that" and skip away, never to come back again to the foundation of what our Lord has fulfilled on our behalf. No one in their right mind would say, "I went to school to learn the reason why, but now I'll reject all that I have learned to hold this job down." Further, all people who hold a steady job continue to learn the companies way of doing business, and if they reject that, they will be fired. (Unless you're a government employee.)
Anyway, if we are to pick up our cross daily, as Jesus said, and we are to die daily, as Paul said, then we need to have the law at our disposal, and that's the beauty of not being under it. The carnal mind reins with some. That's why they can't be subject to the law as I have described.
Romans 8:6-9 (KJV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP]For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
This verse should be obvious to all. When arguments begin against the Mosaic Law, it is always based on the physical fleshly stuff when describing our incapability to abide by it with perfection. When one starts to talk about the Spiritual aspects of the Mosaic law, the conversation goes right back to the physical argument, and that's the focus of the two factions, and why there is no agreement. There you all have it in a nut shell.
Anyway, if we are to pick up our cross daily, as Jesus said, and we are to die daily, as Paul said, then we need to have the law at our disposal, and that's the beauty of not being under it. The carnal mind reins with some. That's why they can't be subject to the law as I have described.
Romans 8:6-9 (KJV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP]For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
This verse should be obvious to all. When arguments begin against the Mosaic Law, it is always based on the physical fleshly stuff when describing our incapability to abide by it with perfection. When one starts to talk about the Spiritual aspects of the Mosaic law, the conversation goes right back to the physical argument, and that's the focus of the two factions, and why there is no agreement. There you all have it in a nut shell.