The Torah is Still Binding and We Must Obey It

[Soyeong]

As soon as you inserted the conditional statement, "though I think that Romans 10:5-8 referring to Deuteronomy 30:11-16 as the word of faith".

Then you are in conflict with the primary doctrine of Christianity.

People really like to ignore the point that Paul was making in Romans 10:5-8 and its relevance to the surrounding verses because that context is contrary to how they want to interpret the surrounding verses, so correctly understanding Romans 10:9-10 in the context in which it was written is not contrary to the primary doctrine of Christianity, just contrary to your misunderstanding of those verses.

Romans 10:13 for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved".

All of the ways that God is referred to in the Bible describe aspects of His character, so calling on the name of Lord is recognizing who He is and is identifying with His character, which is also the way of salvation. The way to know God is by acting in accordance with His character, which is eternal life (John 17:3), which is also the way that God saves us from sin, which is acting in a way that is contrary to His character.

Romans 10:13 is connected with Romans 10:5-12, which references Deuteronomy 30:11-20 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to saying that God's law is not too difficult for us to obey, that obedience to it brings life, and a blessing, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised him from the dead (Titus 2:14). God's law is also His instructions for how to act in accordance with His character, which is why the Bible frequently uses the same terms to describe the character of God as it does to describe the character of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). Romans 10:13 is also connected with Romans 10:14-16, which speaks against those who do not obey the Gospel. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God, which was a light to the Gentiles, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is the way to obey the Gospel. In regard to calling on the name of the Lord, Jesus also asked why people called him Lord, but do not do what he said (Luke 6:46).

What you have done is weld the reconciliation of mankind to God through Jesus Christ. With your own legal obedience to the law, thereby generating an alternate gospel. The key word in your interpretation is "though", hence you add, "though I think that Romans 10:5-referring to Deuteronomy 30:11-16 as the word of faith".

Paul îs the one who chose to make the point that he made in Romans 10:5-8 in the place that he made it, so if Paul hadn't made that point where he did someone else had made that point in a different book, then you might have room to accuse me of welding that together, but as it stands your problem is with what Paul wrote, not with me.

Jesus + obedience to the law = salvation, is a blatant heresy.

What you fail to understand is that the reconciliation that Jesus performed in His own blood. Was a permanent and eternal redemptive act, performed by Jesus alone, a divine reconciliation for humanity. Nothing added, as there is nothing we can do to initiate our own salvation.

This is not my position. It is not the case that we need to add our obedience to God's law as if what Jesus accomplished were not enough. Jesus is the embodiment of God's word expressed by setting a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to it for us to follow, so us embodying God's word through following his example is not adding something of our own to who Jesus is. It is contradictory to think that we should rely on God's word made flesh for salvation, but not obediently rely on God's word for salvation.

Our salvation from sin would be incomplete if we were only saved from the penalty of our sin while we continued to live in sin, so there must also be an aspect of our salvation that we are experiencing in the present by Jesus leading us to obey God's law. In Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so it is not the case that we are required to have first done those works in order to become saved as the result, and it is not the case that we are rehired to do those works as the result of having first been saved, but rather God graciously teaching us how to experience doing those works is itself the content of His gift of saving us from not having that experience.

"if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord,

It is contradictory to confess that Jesus is Lord while not obediently submitting to him as Lord by being a doer of God's law.

and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead

,

Even the demons believe that God raised Jesus from the dead as a historical fact, so that doesn't do anyone any good without understanding what Jesus accomplished through the cross and what that means for how we should live our lives by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law.

you will be saved

"

It is contradictory to be saved from not being a doer of God's law while not being a doer of God's law.

The death and resurrection of Jesus stands on it's own with no qualification.

The law involves your effort at your own reconciliation, your own attempt at gaining righteousness.

You can join a hundred other heretical organizations that add something to Christ's reconciliation.

Jesus + my obedience = salvation.

Things that involve our own effort do not involve relying on anyone else, so it is contradictory to think that relying on God's instructions involves relying on our own effort. If God's law were His instructions for how to gain our own righteousness, and God does not want us to do that, then it would follow that God therefore does not want to be obeyed, which is absurd, therefore it is not God's instructions for how to gain our own righteousness, but for how to testify about His righteousness. Likewise, the purpose of doing good works in obedience to God's law is not to establish our own goodness, but to testify about God's goodness, which is why our good works in obedience to Him give glory to Him (Matthew 5:16). Thinking that God's law is about gaining our own righteousness has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of why we should obey it (Romans 9:30-10:4).

 

[rogerg]

I agree that a change of the law has occurred, though the context is in regard to a change of the priesthood, so it is speaking about a change in the law in regard to its administration and not in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery or sinful to help the poor.

No, it is not speaking about administration and there is nothing in the Bible that supports that conclusion. It is of your conjecture.

Regarding salvation, there are two laws of consequence. Everything flows from those.

1) The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and 2) the law of sin and death.

The New Covenant is still made with the same God with the same character traits and therefore the same Torah for how to testify about His character traits. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore any laws that God has given for how to testify about His righteousness are eternally valid (Psalms 119:160). Melchizedek is the King of Righteousness, not the rejection of righteousness.

The Bible is abundantly clear that obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to inherit eternal life, which is also confirmed by the words of Jesus (Deuteronomy 30:11-20, Deuteronomy 32:46-47, Proverbs 3:18, Proverbs 6:23, Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28, Romans 2:6-7, Romans 6:19-23, Hebrews 5:9, Revelation 22:14). In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him His way that He and Israel might know Him, and in John 17:3, eternal life is knowing God and Jesus. There is only one way to know God and that is by acting in accordance with His eternal character, which does not change between covenants. Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example, so you have no justification for thinking that him being a priest in of the order of Melchizedek means rejecting everything he is and taught and following a undefined law that he never taught. Jesus is God's word made flesh, so the way to believe in him is not by rejecting God's word.

You ignore all of the verses I posted in my last reply trying to force the gospel into being that which you desire it to be
rather than what it is - that with the change of priesthood also came a change in law is evident. Nevertheless, the Mosaic Law could
never remit sin nor bring salvation. Only the laws of life in Christ and sin and death are pertinent to salvation.

The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if the New Covenant does everything that it does plus more, which is what it means to make something obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). So the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10), plus it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6). While God found fault with the Mosaic Law, the fault that He found was not with His Torah, but with the people for not continuing to obey it (Hebrews 8:7-9), so the solution to the problem was not to do away with the Torah, but to do away with what was hindering us from obeying, which is why the New Covenant involves God sending His Son to free us from sin so that we might be free to obey His Torah and meet its righteous requirement (Hebrews 8:3-4), God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us to obey His Torah (Ezekiel 36:26-27), and putting His Torah in our mind and writing it on our hearts so that we will obey it (Jeremiah 31:33).

You're groping and twisting. The Mosaic Covenant did not, nor could it ever produce salvation. Salvation is and was always only through/by Christ, and not through nor by the keeping of law. You would do well to let go of the law and focus on Christ.

Your perception of the gospel is law centric with everything including Christ revolving around it, instead of (as it should be), Christ centric with everything revolving around Him.
Why don't you ponder the doctrine of Christ alone as Saviour instead of the law as saviour, and should you comprehend it, we can discuss further then.

 

[Soyeong]

No, it is not speaking about administration and there is nothing in the Bible that supports that conclusion. It is of your conjecture.

Your point in your last post was that we are under the priesthood of Melchizedek rather than the priesthood of Aaron, so the context is speaking about administration, and this is not conjecture on my part.

Regarding salvation, there are two laws of consequence. Everything flows from those.

1) The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and 2) the law of sin and death.

Agreed. In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded him without departing from it, so the Law of Moses is the Law of God and it is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. In Romans 7:25-8:3, Paul equated the Law of God with the Law of the Spirit of Life by contrasting them both with the law of sin and death, after all the Law of Moses was given by God and the Spirit and Christ are God, so it is the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contracted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God.

In Romans 7, Paul said that the Law of God is holy, righteous, and good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted in obeying it, but contested that with the law of sin that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do. In Romans 7:7, Paul said that the Law of God is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, however, the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5), so it is sinful and causes sin to increase. So indeed, in regard to salvation we have a choice between two directions of whether to serve the law of sin, where sin has dominion over us or to serve the Law of God, where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us. In Romans 6, if we present ourselves as obedient slaves, then we are slaves to the one that we obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness.

You ignore all of the verses I posted in my last reply trying to force the gospel into being that which you desire it to be
rather than what it is - that with the change of priesthood also came a change in law is evident. Nevertheless, the Mosaic Law could
never remit sin nor bring salvation. Only the laws of life in Christ and sin and death are pertinent to salvation.

I did not ignore the verses that you posted, but rather I agree that we are under the priesthood of Melchizedek, though I disagree with your interpretation that that means that we are to reject everything Christ taught and come under a brand new law that he did not teach. In Matthew 4:15-23, it directly describes the Gospel that Jesus taught as being the message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, so I am basing my position on what is directly stated, not trying to force it into being what I desire it to be, rather you are in opposition to the Gospel that Jesus taught.

You're groping and twisting. The Mosaic Covenant did not, nor could it ever produce salvation. Salvation is and was always only through/by Christ, and not through nor by the keeping of law. You would do well to let go of the law and focus on Christ.

Your perception of the gospel is law centric with everything including Christ revolving around it, instead of (as it should be), Christ centric with everything revolving around Him.
Why don't you ponder the doctrine of Christ alone as Saviour instead of the law as saviour, and should you comprehend it, we can discuss further then.

I have addressed what you said to explain why I disagree, but you are groping and twisting to avoid addressing what I have said with the support of Scripture. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Christ is God's word made flesh, so it is contradictory to think that I should focus on Christ rather than on God's word or to think that I should focus on Christ rather than on who he is and what he taught. Then goal of everything in Scripture is to teach us how to know Christ, which is eternal life (John 17:3) and that is primarily inclusive of the Mosaic Law (Exodus 33:13, Matthew 7:23). Sadly in the name of being Christ centric you are arguing against obeying God's instructions for how to focus on him.

 

[rogerg]

Your point in your last post was that we are under the priesthood of Melchizedek rather than the priesthood of Aaron, so the context is speaking about administration, and this is not conjecture on my part.

No, it is not speaking about administration, it is speaking about salvation itself.

[Heb 7:17-18, 25 KJV] 17 For he testifieth,
Thou [art] a priest for ever after the

18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. ...
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Agreed. In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded him without departing from it, so the Law of Moses is the Law of God and it is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. In Romans 7:25-8:3, Paul equated the Law of God with the Law of the Spirit of Life by contrasting them both with the law of sin and death, after all the Law of Moses was given by God and the Spirit and Christ are God, so it is the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contracted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God.

The law of Moses is NOT the law of God. The law of Moses did/does not have the ability to save anyone. Only Christ does. That
is why He has the title of Saviour. To sin therefore, is in not trusting Christ as Saviour. Only by being placed under the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus by Jesus Christ alone, moves someone from death to life and from unbelieving to believing.

I did not ignore the verses that you posted, but rather I agree that we are under the priesthood of Melchizedek, though I disagree with your interpretation that that means that we are to reject everything Christ taught and come under a brand new law that he did not teach. In Matthew 4:15-23, it directly describes the Gospel that Jesus taught as being the message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, so I am basing my position on what is directly stated, not trying to force it into being what I desire it to be, rather you are in opposition to the Gospel that Jesus taught.

Jesus, and the whole Bible teach that He is the Saviour and those who become saved do so only through/by Him. And by your misrepresenting what of I've said shows that you comprehend neither Christ nor His salvation. I do not take kindly to you stating that I suggest that anyone ignore Christ's gospel. It is you who ignores Christ's gospel and worse by the preaching of your gobbledygook and in the trusting of the false gospel of works of law for salvation, which gospel sets Christ at naught.
Therefore, at this point, this discussion has ended.

[Heb 10:28-29 KJV]
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

 

[glf]

Till heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, until all is fulfilled.

Whatsoever the law says, it says to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God.

Before faith is come, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith that should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law became our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith, but after faith is come, we are no longer a schoolmaster.

If the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of the heffer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the cleansing of the flesh. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. For this cause, he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might become inheritors of the eternal promise.

The law of the Spirit of life has made me free from the law of sin and death.

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, you are fallen from grace.

For without faith, it is impossible to please him, for we must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Hereby we know that we are of the truth and can assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart condemns us not, then we have confidence before God, and know that we have whatsoever we ask because we keep his commandments and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, that we believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another as he commanded.

 

[Inquisitor]

People really like to ignore the point that Paul was making in Romans 10:5-8 and its relevance to the surrounding verses because that context is contrary to how they want to interpret the surrounding verses, so correctly understanding Romans 10:9-10 in the context in which it was written is not contrary to the primary doctrine of Christianity, just contrary to your misunderstanding of those verses.


All of the ways that God is referred to in the Bible describe aspects of His character, so calling on the name of Lord is recognizing who He is and is identifying with His character, which is also the way of salvation. The way to know God is by acting in accordance with His character, which is eternal life (John 17:3), which is also the way that God saves us from sin, which is acting in a way that is contrary to His character.

Romans 10:13 is connected with Romans 10:5-12, which references Deuteronomy 30:11-20 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to saying that God's law is not too difficult for us to obey, that obedience to it brings life, and a blessing, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised him from the dead (Titus 2:14). God's law is also His instructions for how to act in accordance with His character, which is why the Bible frequently uses the same terms to describe the character of God as it does to describe the character of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). Romans 10:13 is also connected with Romans 10:14-16, which speaks against those who do not obey the Gospel. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God, which was a light to the Gentiles, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is the way to obey the Gospel. In regard to calling on the name of the Lord, Jesus also asked why people called him Lord, but do not do what he said (Luke 6:46).


Paul îs the one who chose to make the point that he made in Romans 10:5-8 in the place that he made it, so if Paul hadn't made that point where he did someone else had made that point in a different book, then you might have room to accuse me of welding that together, but as it stands your problem is with what Paul wrote, not with me.


This is not my position. It is not the case that we need to add our obedience to God's law as if what Jesus accomplished were not enough. Jesus is the embodiment of God's word expressed by setting a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to it for us to follow, so us embodying God's word through following his example is not adding something of our own to who Jesus is. It is contradictory to think that we should rely on God's word made flesh for salvation, but not obediently rely on God's word for salvation.

Our salvation from sin would be incomplete if we were only saved from the penalty of our sin while we continued to live in sin, so there must also be an aspect of our salvation that we are experiencing in the present by Jesus leading us to obey God's law. In Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so it is not the case that we are required to have first done those works in order to become saved as the result, and it is not the case that we are rehired to do those works as the result of having first been saved, but rather God graciously teaching us how to experience doing those works is itself the content of His gift of saving us from not having that experience.


It is contradictory to confess that Jesus is Lord while not obediently submitting to him as Lord by being a doer of God's law.


Even the demons believe that God raised Jesus from the dead as a historical fact, so that doesn't do anyone any good without understanding what Jesus accomplished through the cross and what that means for how we should live our lives by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law.


It is contradictory to be saved from not being a doer of God's law while not being a doer of God's law.


Things that involve our own effort do not involve relying on anyone else, so it is contradictory to think that relying on God's instructions involves relying on our own effort. If God's law were His instructions for how to gain our own righteousness, and God does not want us to do that, then it would follow that God therefore does not want to be obeyed, which is absurd, therefore it is not God's instructions for how to gain our own righteousness, but for how to testify about His righteousness. Likewise, the purpose of doing good works in obedience to God's law is not to establish our own goodness, but to testify about God's goodness, which is why our good works in obedience to Him give glory to Him (Matthew 5:16). Thinking that God's law is about gaining our own righteousness has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of why we should obey it (Romans 9:30-10:4).

Are you saying that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord is not saved?

Romans 10:13 for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved".

Romans 10:13 is connected with Romans 10:5-12, which references Deuteronomy 30:11-20 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to saying that God's law is not too difficult for us to obey

The letter of the law, "Do not commit adultery", is superficial and useless. Jesus said that anyone who looks at a woman
with lust has already committed adultery.

Therefore, the literal law, the written law, is not a reliable guide to the deeper knowledge of sin.

You can't tell people to not commit adultery when Jesus expanded that commandment.

Someone has to start telling people the truth.

This cannot continue, the literal law has been overruled by the higher law.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

@Soyeong

Hey there! In my daily studies, I ran across this passage and am wondering what you think of it.

Acts 15:5 NKJV - "But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

I'm sure that you know that Paul was in opposition to this teaching. My question is, doesn't this passage make it seem clear that the Law of Moses is not to be followed? These Pharisees were teaching that without physical circumcision, they cannot be saved.

 

[KohenMatt]

Are you saying that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord is not saved?

Romans 10:13 for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved".

The letter of the law, "Do not commit adultery", is superficial and useless. Jesus said that anyone who looks at a woman
with lust has already committed adultery.

Therefore, the literal law, the written law, is not a reliable guide to the deeper knowledge of sin.

You can't tell people to not commit adultery when Jesus expanded that commandment.

Someone has to start telling people the truth.

This cannot continue, the literal law has been overruled by the higher law.

So does this mean that commiting physical adultery is ok, since the higher law of lust and mental adultery overrules the literal law?

Instead, maybe we should still follow the literal law in addition to Jesus' expansion of it.

 

[rogerg]

So does this mean that commiting physical adultery is ok, since the higher law of lust and mental adultery overrules the literal law?

Instead, maybe we should still follow the literal law in addition to Jesus' expansion of it.

Didn't Christ's offering cover all sin? That is not to say that Christians shouldn't conduct themselves in a Christ
glorifying manner but neither will not doing so affect one's salvation - salvation is through what Christ achieved,
and not by anything that we may or may not achieve: to those to whom it is given, it is solely a gift free imputed from an
exceedingly merciful and gracious God with no prerequisites associated to receive nor to maintain it.

 

[Inquisitor]

So does this mean that commiting physical adultery is ok, since the higher law of lust and mental adultery overrules the literal law?

Instead, maybe we should still follow the literal law in addition to Jesus' expansion of it.

Obviously sexual immorality is sin, both the thought and act are sin (Acts 15).

Go ahead and explain to me how you rework the entire law. So that we can grasp
what Jesus was saying. If you look at a girl with lust you have transgressed the law, fact.

That interpretation of the law by Jesus shreds the literal reading.

How do you approach the rest of the law knowing that the literal reading
is inadequate.

Here is another example.

Deuteronomy 25:4
“You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.

1 Corinthians 9:9
For it is written in the Law of Moses: “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.”
God is not concerned about oxen, is He?

The literal reading of the scripture is not the way the apostle was reading the law.

So it is not just murder and adultery that have that deeper meaning.

 

[Inquisitor]

People really like to ignore the point that Paul was making in Romans 10:5-8 and its relevance to the surrounding verses because that context is contrary to how they want to interpret the surrounding verses, so correctly understanding Romans 10:9-10 in the context in which it was written is not contrary to the primary doctrine of Christianity, just contrary to your misunderstanding of those verses.


All of the ways that God is referred to in the Bible describe aspects of His character, so calling on the name of Lord is recognizing who He is and is identifying with His character, which is also the way of salvation. The way to know God is by acting in accordance with His character, which is eternal life (John 17:3), which is also the way that God saves us from sin, which is acting in a way that is contrary to His character.

Romans 10:13 is connected with Romans 10:5-12, which references Deuteronomy 30:11-20 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to saying that God's law is not too difficult for us to obey, that obedience to it brings life, and a blessing, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised him from the dead (Titus 2:14). God's law is also His instructions for how to act in accordance with His character, which is why the Bible frequently uses the same terms to describe the character of God as it does to describe the character of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). Romans 10:13 is also connected with Romans 10:14-16, which speaks against those who do not obey the Gospel. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God, which was a light to the Gentiles, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is the way to obey the Gospel. In regard to calling on the name of the Lord, Jesus also asked why people called him Lord, but do not do what he said (Luke 6:46).


Paul îs the one who chose to make the point that he made in Romans 10:5-8 in the place that he made it, so if Paul hadn't made that point where he did someone else had made that point in a different book, then you might have room to accuse me of welding that together, but as it stands your problem is with what Paul wrote, not with me.


This is not my position. It is not the case that we need to add our obedience to God's law as if what Jesus accomplished were not enough. Jesus is the embodiment of God's word expressed by setting a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to it for us to follow, so us embodying God's word through following his example is not adding something of our own to who Jesus is. It is contradictory to think that we should rely on God's word made flesh for salvation, but not obediently rely on God's word for salvation.

Our salvation from sin would be incomplete if we were only saved from the penalty of our sin while we continued to live in sin, so there must also be an aspect of our salvation that we are experiencing in the present by Jesus leading us to obey God's law. In Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so it is not the case that we are required to have first done those works in order to become saved as the result, and it is not the case that we are rehired to do those works as the result of having first been saved, but rather God graciously teaching us how to experience doing those works is itself the content of His gift of saving us from not having that experience.


It is contradictory to confess that Jesus is Lord while not obediently submitting to him as Lord by being a doer of God's law.


Even the demons believe that God raised Jesus from the dead as a historical fact, so that doesn't do anyone any good without understanding what Jesus accomplished through the cross and what that means for how we should live our lives by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law.


It is contradictory to be saved from not being a doer of God's law while not being a doer of God's law.


Things that involve our own effort do not involve relying on anyone else, so it is contradictory to think that relying on God's instructions involves relying on our own effort. If God's law were His instructions for how to gain our own righteousness, and God does not want us to do that, then it would follow that God therefore does not want to be obeyed, which is absurd, therefore it is not God's instructions for how to gain our own righteousness, but for how to testify about His righteousness. Likewise, the purpose of doing good works in obedience to God's law is not to establish our own goodness, but to testify about God's goodness, which is why our good works in obedience to Him give glory to Him (Matthew 5:16). Thinking that God's law is about gaining our own righteousness has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of why we should obey it (Romans 9:30-10:4).

The letter of the law, "Do not commit adultery", is superficial and useless. Jesus said that anyone who looks at a woman
with lust has already committed adultery.

Therefore, the literal law, the written law, is not a reliable guide to the deeper knowledge of sin.

You can't tell people to not commit adultery when Jesus expanded that commandment.

Someone has to start telling people the truth.

This cannot continue, the literal law has been overruled by the higher law.

 

[Cameron143]

Obviously sexual immorality is sin, both the thought and act are sin (Acts 15).

Go ahead and explain to me how you rework the entire law. So that we can grasp
what Jesus was saying. If you look at a girl with lust you have transgressed the law, fact.

That interpretation of the law by Jesus shreds the literal reading.

How do you approach the rest of the law knowing that the literal reading
is inadequate.

Here is another example.

Deuteronomy 25:4
“You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.

1 Corinthians 9:9
For it is written in the Law of Moses: “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.”
God is not concerned about oxen, is He?

The literal reading of the scripture is not the way the apostle was reading the law.

So it is not just murder and adultery that have that deeper meaning.

If the ox is talking too much I would muzzle it whether it's threshing or not.

 

[Dino246]

So does this mean that commiting physical adultery is ok, since the higher law of lust and mental adultery overrules the literal law?

Instead, maybe we should still follow the literal law in addition to Jesus' expansion of it.

"Supersedes" is a better word than "overrules".

 

[Dino246]

If the ox is talking too much I would muzzle it whether it's threshing or not.

If the ox starts talking, I'd be listening. Especially if he's having a conversation with the donkey.

 

[Cameron143]

If the ox starts talking, I'd be listening. Especially if he's having a conversation with the donkey.

Keep this up and we'll soon have a good joke...an ox, a donkey, and a ( ) walked into a barn...

 

[Magenta]

Acts 15:5 NKJV - "But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying,
"It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

I'm sure that you know that Paul was in opposition to this teaching.

So was Peter. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days
God made a choice among you that the Gentiles would hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, showed His approval by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for He cleansed their hearts by faith.

10 Now then, why do you test God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither
we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace
of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

From Acts 15:20 plus 28

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

So was Peter. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days
God made a choice among you that the Gentiles would hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, showed His approval by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for He cleansed their hearts by faith.

10 Now then, why do you test God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither
we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace
of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

From Acts 15:20 plus 28

Indeed! Isn't that one of Peter's fantastic speeches? Just amazing.

 

[Dino246]

Keep this up and we'll soon have a good joke...an ox, a donkey, and a ( ) walked into a barn...

You’d think one of them would have seen it.

 

[Soyeong]

@Soyeong

Hey there! In my daily studies, I ran across this passage and am wondering what you think of it.

Acts 15:5 NKJV - "But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

I'm sure that you know that Paul was in opposition to this teaching. My question is, doesn't this passage make it seem clear that the Law of Moses is not to be followed? These Pharisees were teaching that without physical circumcision, they cannot be saved.

Hello,

Christ set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so Acts 15 should not be interpreted as ruling that Gentiles shouldn't follow Christ.

In Acts 15:10-11, it makes it clear that the heavy burden that no one could bear was not the Mosaic Law, but a means of salvation other than salvation by grace, namely salvation by circumcision that was proposed by the men from Judea in Acts 15:1, so they were discussing the means of salvation, not whether not Gentiles should follow Christ. In Acts 15:5, Pharisees from among the believers agreed with the men from Judea that Gentiles should be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses, but they disagreed that it was in order to become saved, hence the Jerusalem Council making a ruling in support of the Pharisees and against the men from Judea in Acts 15:6-11.

In Romans 10:5-8, it references Deuteronomy 30:11-20 as the world of faith that we proclaim in regard to saying that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult for us to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So if Acts 15:10 has been referring to the Mosaic Law as being a heavy burden that no one could obey, then they would have been denying God's word, denying the word of faith that we proclaim, and denying that Gentiles should choose life and a blessing instead of death and a curse.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you saying that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord is not saved?

Romans 10:13 for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved".

No, I am not saying that, rather Romans 10:5-8 and Romans 10:13 should be interpreted as being in accordance with each other, especially because Paul's point in Romans 10:5-8 is directly relevant to what it means to call on the name of the Lord and what it means to be saved.

The letter of the law, "Do not commit adultery", is superficial and useless. Jesus said that anyone who looks at a woman
with lust has already committed adultery.

Therefore, the literal law, the written law, is not a reliable guide to the deeper knowledge of sin.

You can't tell people to not commit adultery when Jesus expanded that commandment.

Someone has to start telling people the truth.

This cannot continue, the literal law has been overruled by the higher law.

Jesus notably did not say that God's word was superficial and useless, but rather if we correctly understand what is being commanded by the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and against coveting in our hearts, then we won't look at a married woman with lust in our hearts. God's word and by extension God is not an unreliable guide to the deeper knowledge of sin. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so Jesus did not expand it, but rather he fulfilled it by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. There is not a higher law than the Law of God. The Law of God is truth (Psalms 119:142), so you are opposed to following truth.

Obviously sexual immorality is sin, both the thought and act are sin (Acts 15).

Go ahead and explain to me how you rework the entire law. So that we can grasp
what Jesus was saying. If you look at a girl with lust you have transgressed the law, fact.

That interpretation of the law by Jesus shreds the literal reading.

How do you approach the rest of the law knowing that the literal reading
is inadequate.

Here is another example.

Deuteronomy 25:4
“You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.

1 Corinthians 9:9
For it is written in the Law of Moses: “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.”
God is not concerned about oxen, is He?

The literal reading of the scripture is not the way the apostle was reading the law.

So it is not just murder and adultery that have that deeper meaning.

God's law is spiritual (Romans 7:14) in that it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principles that are aspects of God's character/fruits of the Spirit. Correctly understanding a spiritual principle will always lead us to take actions that are examples of that principle in accordance with God's instructions and will never lead us away from following the instructions that God gave to teach us that principle.