Do We Have To Keep The Law?

[eternally-gratefull]

I agree that if they had Trusted God like Zechariahs did they would have followed His instructions like him and Jesus and Paul, instead of creating their own.

And they were indeed still perverting the Word of the Christ to the Galatians.

I'm curious:



I know you preach this, I have tried to find it's origin. Can you show me where this is written?


Zechariahs knew to " How???? What was the main difference, according to the Bible, between Zechariahs and the Pharisees?

you mssed my whole point, i give up.

again, your reasoning in this stuff is flawed.

 

[Jackson123]

C. Remain holy, but when we defile ourselves take appropriate measures to cleanse the defilement.

So, you believe we have to remain Holy or keep the law, but if we not, or fall, we have to repent, and back to keep the law, am I correct?

 

[Ralph-]

Christ didn't need any of the law to be right with GOD because the law was made for the lawless, which he never was.

Christ HAD to keep the moral parts of the law. If he didn't he would be showing himself to not be the Son of God-the epitome of God's love in a person.

And as far as being right with God, he did NOT have to keep the ceremonial laws in the law of Moses. He had no sin to separate him from the Father, so he had no need to perform the lawful ceremonies through which a person draws near to God to enter into covenant relationship, and to atone for sin. He was already in perfect covenant relationship with the Father. That's why we don't have to do them either. We can if we want but it is not necessary now as a matter of law because we are already near to the Father in covenant relationship through Christ's closeness to God.

...separation of the law into different parts started with the church fathers...

It's obvious that in the law of Moses laws are different from other laws and can be divided up into categories. Some laws address how you treat others. Some address cleanliness. Some address what to eat. Some address how and when to approach God. These are obvious divisions of laws and which serve different purposes.

What you are thinking of is how the law can not be divided up in regard to justification. They are a single unseparated entity in that regard. That is how the law was to the Israelites. It was not to be broken up for them, not because the laws have no distinction between them and aren't somehow different from one another but because for them that is how they were in covenant with God.

That was not true for Jesus. He did not have to do all of the law to be in covenant with the Father, because Christ and his followers are already in covenant with God and so don't need to do the parts of the law designed to do that. But surely people in covenant with God through Jesus must do the remaining parts of the law that address how to treat other people (the important part of the law, the part that truly matters) because that's what people in covenant with God through Christ were created to do-Ephesians 2:10.

Are you ex-catholic by chance? That seems to be the doctrine they follow.

No.

 

[Studyman]

Sin is sin is sin.

there are no differences,

Wow! OK, one more time.

You asked what happens if we fail to keep God's instructions 24/7, 365.

I replied that the outcome(forgiveness, no forgiveness) of this "failure", according to the Word, would be determined by if we slipped and fell and repent, or if we transgress His Commandments (Sin) as a matter of religious practice, like those in Matt. 7.


I'm talking about the difference between how the Word which became Flesh treats those who fall in sin (Adulterous woman) and those who preach a religion which "Transgresses the Commandments of God by their traditions" (Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time, also known as Pharisees)

one is falling, with repentance and the other is "practicing" with no repentance.

Are you preaching Jesus treats both sins the same?

 

[Studyman]

you mssed my whole point, i give up.

again, your reasoning in this stuff is flawed.

I must confess, I don't think I missed your point, but maybe I did. Can you explain how my reasoning in the above post is flawed, and also I still would like to know where you got this

they added to try to make it harder to break real laws.

I have searched all over the Bible and I can't even find a hint of this teaching. But I don't know everything so maybe you would please show me how you come to this doctrine?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Wow! OK, one more time.

You asked what happens if we fail to keep God's instructions 24/7, 365.

I replied that the outcome(forgiveness, no forgiveness) of this "failure", according to the Word, would be determined by if we slipped and fell and repent, or if we transgress His Commandments (Sin) as a matter of religious practice, like those in Matt. 7.


I'm talking about the difference between how the Word which became Flesh treats those who fall in sin (Adulterous woman) and those who preach a religion which "Transgresses the Commandments of God by their traditions" (Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time, also known as Pharisees)

one is falling, with repentance and the other is "practicing" with no repentance.

Are you preaching Jesus treats both sins the same?

Again, thanks for proving me right.

in your own words.

I replied that the outcome(forgiveness, no forgiveness) of this "failure", according to the Word, would be determined by if we slipped and fell and repent, or if we transgress His Commandments (Sin) as a matter of religious practice, like those in Matt. 7.

As long as i do this, i am ok (i can basically sin all i want)

if i repnt i am ok, if not the am doomed.

again james said if i break one command i am guilty period.

all sin causes death, god coes not forgive certain sins and not others, thats a religious view which wreeks of phariseeism,

God can Not look at sin period, you think your sin does not stink you do not know God very well.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I must confess, I don't think I missed your point, but maybe I did. Can you explain how my reasoning in the above post is flawed, and also I still would like to know where you got this

I have searched all over the Bible and I can't even find a hint of this teaching. But I don't know everything so maybe you would please show me how you come to this doctrine?

why else would you take one law, and make 20laws which make it harder to brak the first law,

you have a doctrine no one else hs ever heard, it is up,for you to prove your doctrine, if you want people to follow you.

 

[Ralph-]

So basically, we can excuse sin depending on what the reason was? That sounds an awful lot like what the pharisees would do, justify that their sin was ok, while others people sin was not ok.

sin is sin is sin, lets not justify or excuse our sin away, the penalty of sin is death, it does not say the penaly of these sins, or sins done for this reason is death.

James said we can keep the whole law yet stumble in one point we are guilty of all, he did not give excuses and say if you stumbled because of this its ok, he said your guilty.

There is sinning because of weakness, ignorance, and even foolishness.

And then there is sinning because you don't care about or trust in the forgiveness of God you have received which is nothing more than unbelief. Sinning in unbelief is an entirely different matter than the believer who clings to his trust in Christ but sins because of weakness or ignorance.


If the church understood this they would realize that perhaps the sin they excuse as weakness, or Christian liberty is really them sinning in unbelief and a trampling on of the blood of Christ that sanctified them.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There is sinning because of weakness, ignorance, and even foolishness.

And then there is sinning because you don't care about or trust in the forgiveness of God you have received which is nothing more than unbelief. Sinning in unbelief is an entirely different matter than the believer who clings to his trust in Christ but sins because of weakness or ignorance.


If the church understood this they would realize that perhaps the sin they excuse as weakness, or Christian liberty is really them sinning in unbelief and a trampling on of the blood of Christ that sanctified them.

This is just excusing your sin. And not taking responsibility for your own sinfulness,

i love how you workers judge us as trying to excuse or say we love sin, when in reality when it comes to it, that us what you are doing.

if you would interpret what true sin is you would understand your excuses are fruitless,

 

[Studyman]

the Pharisees came into being during the 400 " silent " years. there is no Biblical story of them, their history.

so, you have told me in the past that you do not care about historians or scholars, they are the ones who give us the story of how the Pharisees came to be.

Paul explained why as did Jeremiah, Isaiah, the Books of 1st and 2nd Kings. I don't know where you get this stuff G9.

Rom. 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

"400" silent years. REally!!

Matt. 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias (Isaiah) prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

No history of false Levite Priests in the Bible.

Gosh, how does one even respond to such preaching.

 

[Ralph-]

all sin causes death, god coes not forgive certain sins and not others, thats a religious view which wreeks of phariseeism,

No, that is not Phariseeism, it's what the Bible teaches:

"16If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death."-1 John 5:16-17

you think your sin does not stink you do not know God very well.

Be fair. That's not even remotely close to what he's saying.

 

[Ralph-]

i love how you workers judge us as trying to excuse or say we love sin, when in reality when it comes to it, that us what you are doing.

if you would interpret what true sin is you would understand your excuses are fruitless,

Yes, I know. True sin is obeying the commandments of God because that is you trying to earn your own salvation, while not obeying the commandments of God because you don't feel like it is you trusting in the grace of God for salvation. I'm well aware of your doctrine.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No, that is not Phariseeism, it's what the Bible teaches:

"16If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death."-1 John 5:16-17

what does a passage whcih says if i see a person commit a sin, and he is still alive have to do with what I said?

of course there is sin which does not lead to death, if not, we would all be dead.

Be fair. That's not even remotely close to what he's saying.

could have fooled me..

 

[Studyman]

Indeed.

But some of those who had believed from the party of the Pharisees stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to command [them] to observe the law of Moses!” Acts 15:5

Now [this was] because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, in order that they might enslave us, to whom not even for an hour did we yield in subjection, in order that the truth of the gospel might remain continually with you. Galatians 2:4-5​

You believe this because you have been convinced that the Pharisees were following God's Laws. You get this false preaching from man, many on this very forum.

But Jesus never said they were following God's Commandments, or the Law of Moses, He said they were liars, children of satan, and that they taught for doctrines the Commandments of man, not of God.

They killed Stephen for telling them this truth. Yet you take their word over Jesus in Acts.

Why??? I never could understand how you and others could do this. They "said" they were following the Law of Moses, but Jesus said over and over that they were not.

"Enslave" them to what? The Word which became Flesh, or the doctrines and traditions of the Pharisees which taught for doctrines the commandments of men.

"Enslave" them to what? Their version of the Levitical Priesthood sacrificial "Works of the Law" for remission of sins that the Jews were still pushing.

This is what the Jews were pushing on the Galatians. Not "Love the Lord thy God, and Love thy neighbor as the Word which became Flesh taught in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

 

[Ralph-]

No history of false Levite Priests in the Bible.

Gosh, how does one even respond to such preaching.

Honestly? You don't.

You just share the truth for a while and then you let them languish in their rejection of the truth. Don't get drawn into their battles.


They don't seem to realize that when they draw people into their hardened, angry, insulting arguments that no one pays attention to what they are saying anymore. They are guarding their egos with all kinds of creative defensive arguments but nobody is reading what they are saying anymore for anybody to know that they have somehow protected their image and ego.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes, I know. True sin is obeying the commandments of God because that is you trying to earn your own salvation, while not obeying the commandments of God because you don't feel like it is you trusting in the grace of God for salvation. I'm well aware of your doctrine.

See thats your problem, you look to continue commands, not at the real issue,

you still do not know what sin is. It is not just breaking commands, it goes far far deeper than that. I can obey commands and still be a sinner

 

[JaumeJ]

I must confess, I don't think I missed your point, but maybe I did. Can you explain how my reasoning in the above post is flawed, and also I still would like to know where you got this

I have searched all over the Bible and I can't even find a hint of this teaching. But I don't know everything so maybe you would please show me how you come to this doctrine?

It is my prayerful understanding that regarding this subject we must always practice the following, we should not judge others to condemnation unless we wind up judging ourselves.

In this forum there are behaviors I do not like, and eventually do not tolerate, but this, for me , cannot be translated as I judge them to condemnation . I do not judge any who break any of the laws for I know I am a sinner too, but I know when our Father knows we love Him, we are forgiven the guilt of any of our transgressions.

This does not mean we are to teach against the laws and commandments the comprise Love for that is God. Forgive and we are forgiven, judge to condemnation and we are judged. I will always do all I am given to be obedient to my Father for until He led me to Jesus Christ I had not known Love......I do now.

Those who believe I am "against them" should realize no matter how much I dislike certain teaching and behavior, I pray and hope all to be in the Kingdom beginning with myself.. Praise God....

 

[Ralph-]

See thats your problem, you look to continue commands, not at the real issue,

you still do not know what sin is. It is not just breaking commands, it goes far far deeper than that. I can obey commands and still be a sinner

No. Unbelievers do not keep the commands of God. John said so. It's that simple.

The believer is signified by his obedience to the commands of God, but you are insisting that unbelievers are to. There is no truth to that at all.

 

[JaumeJ]

Ralph...there you go again, making things crystal clear.........

 

[gb9]

Paul explained why as did Jeremiah, Isaiah, the Books of 1st and 2nd Kings. I don't know where you get this stuff G9.

Rom. 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

"400" silent years. REally!!

Matt. 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias (Isaiah) prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

No history of false Levite Priests in the Bible.

Gosh, how does one even respond to such preaching.

there is this thing called history. it is not a sin to study it. as e.g. said, you refuse to accept any mainline theology or history. are you one of those who think that everything is a lie and deception ??

I have never heard anyone dispute that between the time of the return and rebuild of Jerusalem, and the events of Zachariah the father of John the Baptist , were about 400 years. with no divine revelation.