The Rejection of Obedience

  • 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.
rewriter said:
Acts seems to imply that Paul was willing to consent to animal sacrifices, based on his willingness to pay the fees for the other believers who were completing a vow.

And on another basis, we still perform animal sacrifices today, we have just carefully, for the most part, removed ourselves from the process and removed the religious trappings, but just as in many ancient cultures, the remains of the animals sacrificed are avaialable in the market place.
Click to expand...
It's clearly not the same thing. The Mosaic law was very specific about animal sacrifice to cover sin.
 
rewriter said:
Acts seems to imply that Paul was willing to consent to animal sacrifices, based on his willingness to pay the fees for the other believers who were completing a vow.

And on another basis, we still perform animal sacrifices today, we have just carefully, for the most part, removed ourselves from the process and removed the religious trappings, but just as in many ancient cultures, the remains of the animals sacrificed are avaialable in the market place.
Click to expand...
What covenant were these believers cutting?
 
Soyeong said:
Christ said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so it is contradictory to follow Christ instead of the Law of God or to follow God's Word made flesh instead of God's Word.


In Matthew 4, Jesus preceded a quote from what is written by saying "it is written", but in Matthew 5, he preceded a quote from what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so he was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.
Click to expand...
You bring this up habitually in argument for obeying the law, while ignoring Jesus' Word that He is the bread from heaven, and how manna foreshadows Jesus. Manna fell daily and if anyone tried to keep it to morning, it became infested with maggots and began to smell per the Lord's Word that, "In this way I will test whether or not they will follow My instructions."
You've continually treated the Sabbath similarly in keeping the shadow in the new day, in hope of a double blessing, I assume, that is now only provided in Christ.
I'm sure you mean well, but in your error in reviving the law that was satisfied in Christ's death, you rob those, that you call friends, of their provision and rest in Christ. You're accomplishing nothing short of attempting to reanimate the mortified flesh of true believers in your ambition to change their minds. You just as well should try to change the mind of Christ, and then these will follow you.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 2Christ and dkontner
NightTwister said:
It's clearly not the same thing. The Mosaic law was very specific about animal sacrifice to cover sin.
Click to expand...
Might I remind you that the law, which includes the rules and justification for sacrifices, was made for the benefit of humanity, not humanity for the benefit of the law. God could set whatever requirements He chose for the satisfaction for sin, including standing on one foot while whistling dixie. Thus, arguing that sacrifice was needed for the forgiveness of sins in any ultimate sense gets foolish. God also established the scapegoat laws to cover sin, and this also appears to be acknowledged in the NT. But if humans believe that a high price must be paid for the forgiveness of sin, then the need for sacrifice becomes more understandable.
 
rewriter said:
Might I remind you that the law, which includes the rules and justification for sacrifices, was made for the benefit of humanity, not humanity for the benefit of the law. God could set whatever requirements He chose for the satisfaction for sin, including standing on one foot while whistling dixie. Thus, arguing that sacrifice was needed for the forgiveness of sins in any ultimate sense gets foolish. God also established the scapegoat laws to cover sin, and this also appears to be acknowledged in the NT. But if humans believe that a high price must be paid for the forgiveness of sin, then the need for sacrifice becomes more understandable.
Click to expand...
So you would ignore the crucifixion one sacrifice for all and continue to sacrifice animals to cover sin. Hebrews 10 tells us otherwise.
 
BartholomewB said:
You seem to be saying it would be wrong for a Christian to obey the Ten Commandments. Or have I misunderstood you here?
Click to expand...


Why would the believer (not talking about society in general) need the Ten Commandments when

LOVE, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance are what are placed in the hearts and minds

for those who are in Christ and Christ is in them?
 
  • Pray
Reactions: 2Christ
Soyeong said:
In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from the Law of Moses but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in the freedom that we have in Christ is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20) while the way to reject what he accomplished would be by returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from. In other words, the freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin. In Psalm 119:142, the Law of Moses is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of the Law of Moses that puts us into bondage while the truth sets us free.


According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the enter law, so it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that only Jesus did.


Changing the medium upon which the Law of Moses is written from stone to our hearts does not change the content of what it instructs us how to do. For example, the command to keep the Sabbath holy written on stone has the same content as the command to keep the Sabbath holy written on our hearts.


We can't earn our own righteousness even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of Moses (Romans 4:1-5), so that has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of why we should obey it. In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, 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 through faith, which is why those who are under grace are not permitted to transgress the Law of Moses (Romans 6:15). Likewise, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Law of Moses (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and the Law of Moses is the Law of Liberty (Psalm 119:45). To interpret Galatians 3:10-14 as speaking against relying on God's instructions is to interpret it as speaking against relying on God.
Click to expand...

The ministration of condemnation and death is not written on our hearts.
It is Gods Law that is written on our hearts.
Not commandments commanding us to keep Gods Law.

Please go read in context this is essential .. but here is a key verse.

9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
2 Cor.3:9

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is NO law.
Galatians 5:22-23
 
  • Heart
Reactions: dkontner
NightTwister said:
So you would ignore the crucifixion one sacrifice for all and continue to sacrifice animals to cover sin. Hebrews 10 tells us otherwise.
Click to expand...
I do not ignore it, but do you ignore the testimony of Matthew that makes Jesus a scapegoat?
 
NightTwister said:
So you would ignore the crucifixion one sacrifice for all and continue to sacrifice animals to cover sin. Hebrews 10 tells us otherwise.
Click to expand...
Hebrews also says animal sacrifices NEVER took away sins. But according to you, the OT is clear they did. I don't think you understand how sacrifices worked in the OT. Specially since Paul still sacrificed after his conversation with Christ.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. - Hebrews 10:4
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soyeong and rewriter
Delvianna said:
Hebrews also says animal sacrifices NEVER took away sins. But according to you, the OT is clear they did. I don't think you understand how sacrifices worked in the OT. Specially since Paul still sacrificed after his conversation with Christ.
Click to expand...

No one is disputing that OT moral laws have value as preparation for the NT Gospel.

The issue per NT teaching is that obedience of laws is the old/childish/immature/inferior way of describing the relationship between God and believers.

The NT/mature/Christian/superior and thus superseding way (per Heb. 7:11-10:10) is cooperation/consensus/
mutual submission/love of the Holy Spirit.

If Torahists would speak of walking in the Spirit instead of obeying the Torah, there would be no problem (apply John 3:30).
 
Delvianna said:
Hebrews also says animal sacrifices NEVER took away sins. But according to you, the OT is clear they did. I don't think you understand how sacrifices worked in the OT. Specially since Paul still sacrificed after his conversation with Christ.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't say they did. They pushed them forward until the resurrection of Jesus. They were looking forward to the sacrifice that would cover all of the sins of the elect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Churchgoer
NightTwister said:
No, I didn't say they did. They pushed them forward until the resurrection of Jesus. They were looking forward to the sacrifice that would cover all of the sins of the elect.
Click to expand...
I will quote you:
The Mosaic law was very specific about animal sacrifice to cover sin.
Click to expand...
So you did.

Also, again, Paul sacrificed and the Temple continued to sacrifice until it's destruction in 70 AD and not a single reason scripture gives for it's destruction has to do with sin sacrifices.
 
rewriter said:
I assume you are asking about what vow the believers were completing and it appears plausible that they had taken Nazir vows, as had Pauyl.
Click to expand...
What are those? Is it something we should adopt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back