The Rejection of Obedience

[2Christ]

You think you can do what Jesus did?

Explain yourself what do you mean, no one can do what he did and you know this very well.

 

[Delvianna]

You literally quoted me and then said I said something I didn't. Not surprising from a semi-Arian.

Do you even look over what you write at all? seems like you don't. You clearly aren't interested in having any discussions and by your attitude while you also accusing me of something I'm not. Clearly you'd rather just be argumentative, so good luck to you.

 

[NightTwister]

Do you even look over what you write at all? seems like you don't. You clearly aren't interested in having any discussions and by your attitude while you also accusing me of something I'm not. Clearly you'd rather just be argumentative, so good luck to you.

Do you even read what I write at all? You quote it, then proceed to say I said something I didn't say. You change words thinking they mean the same thing and they don't. Is English not your first language?

 

[pinebeach]

pinepeach,
This strikes me as a deeply felt reaction to concepts you are unwilling to consider. The works issue seems so ancient. Martin Luder's reaction to Roman Catholic abuses in the 16th century is now the "foundation for and definition of salvation?" Even Luder understood and preached that the only valid way of knowing if your were saved was by the "fruit" one bears. No Christian love, humility, service, commitment to the service of those in need and no moral uturn = no salvation. Today's "Christians" seeking relief from conviction, conversion and inconvenience have defined trust in my unique dogmas as what "saves." it never was and never will.

And you strike me as someone who has totally filled up every fiber of their being with themself, rendering the input of anyone else a waste of time

You don't know what you are talking about and you certainly don't know what I'm talking about

 

[pinebeach]

pinepeach,
This strikes me as a deeply felt reaction to concepts you are unwilling to consider. The works issue seems so ancient. Martin Luder's reaction to Roman Catholic abuses in the 16th century is now the "foundation for and definition of salvation?" Even Luder understood and preached that the only valid way of knowing if your were saved was by the "fruit" one bears. No Christian love, humility, service, commitment to the service of those in need and no moral uturn = no salvation. Today's "Christians" seeking relief from conviction, conversion and inconvenience have defined trust in my unique dogmas as what "saves." it never was and never will.

Just another vapid response filled with 'isims' and dead historical figures Have you noticed how I don't address anything to you and yet you consistantly pretend we are having a conversation?

 

[biblestudent78]

And you strike me as someone who has totally filled up every fiber of their being with themself, rendering the input of anyone else a waste of time

You don't know what you are talking about and you certainly don't know what I'm talking about

Sorry, I assumed this was a place for people to honestly contend for their beliefs and are both will and capable of defending them without vituperative intent. You don't know me and I don't know you. Let's contend on the basis of honestly examining and defending our dogmas. If you have no awareness and not interest of where the things you believe so fervently historically originated, then why are you here? The theologies you seem to advocate for are at least 500 yrs old. It seems to me that by now one who accepts them should be happy to defend them.

 

[Soyeong]

You raise a good question in my opinion. Do you know about intrinsic morality?

Intrinsic morality is the idea that certain actions possess moral quality in themselves, independent of any command, statute, or external authority. On this view, acts like justice, mercy, or cruelty are morally charged because of what they are, not because someone declares them so. Moral obligation arises from the nature of persons and actions, meaning that some things are right to do even if no law requires them, and some things are wrong even if no law forbids them. Commands can reveal or reinforce these truths, but they do not create them.

God’s law includes both intrinsic moral realities and positive commands. Some commands express what is eternally and universally good—such as loving one’s neighbor or honoring God—truths that would remain morally binding even if never written down. Other commands are positive, meaning their moral force comes from God’s authoritative will rather than from the nature of the act itself—such as dietary laws, ritual boundaries, or specific covenantal instructions. God’s law therefore operates on two levels: it reveals what is intrinsically right, and it establishes additional obligations grounded in His authority.

Christians often flatten these two categories, treating all commands as if they were equally intrinsic or equally positive, and this makes arguments about obedience difficult to sort out. When intrinsic morality and positive command are collapsed into a single category, people lose the ability to distinguish between what is eternally right and what is right because God has temporarily or covenantally required it. This leads to confusion about moral responsibility, debates over whether disobedience reflects a failure of character or simply a violation of authority, and disagreements about how to apply Scripture across covenants. Without the distinction, conversations about obedience become tangled because the underlying moral structure has been blurred.

Morality is in regard to what ought to be done and all legislators give laws in accordance with their understanding of what ought to be done, so intrinsic moral laws are those that are in accordance with objective morality while positive commands based on authority are not in accordance with objective morality. We ought to embody God's character traits, so all of God's laws are intrinsic moral laws and the position that some of God's laws are not intrinsic moral laws is the position that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws. For example, holiness is one of God's character traits, so holiness is a moral issue, and in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy as God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). God has not given any arbitrary laws based only on His authority, but rather all of God's laws are given in order to teach us how to embody His character traits and the way to honor God is through embodying His character traits. God's character traits are eternal, so none of God's laws teach us things about how to embody His character traits that are temporarily true. Everything that God's covenants teach us about how to embody God's character traits is eternal and cumulatively valid.

 

[pinebeach]

Sorry, I assumed this was a place for people to honestly contend for their beliefs and are both will and capable of defending them without vituperative intent. You don't know me and I don't know you. Let's contend on the basis of honestly examining and defending our dogmas. If you have no awareness and not interest of where the things you believe so fervently historically originated, then why are you here? The theologies you seem to advocate for are at least 500 yrs old. It seems to me that by now one who accepts them should be happy to defend them.

Thing is, I have alot of awareness and I know a blowhard when I come across one. Take it to someone who does not see what I see. I will never be so bored so as to give you credence.

The thing is, again, I do not respond to your posts but you come along and decide we should converse. It's one sided. I bet the air gets cold when you enter a room.

 

[Soyeong]

What covenant were these believers cutting?

The New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing on our hearts (Jeremiah 31;33).

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.

The Torah foreshadows Christ because he is the embodiment of it and by following his example of embodying it we are testifying about who he is. Those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6), so verses that refer to those who are in Christ are only referring to those who are following his example of walking in obedience to the Torah. The Sabbath is still a test whether we will follow God's instructions. All of God's righteous slaws are eternal (Psalm 119:160), so none of them will ever need reviving. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem 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 what he accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Torah (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 Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted 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 Torah.

 

[Delvianna]

Morality is in regard to what ought to be done and all legislators give laws in accordance with their understanding of what ought to be done, so intrinsic moral laws are those that are in accordance with objective morality while positive commands based on authority are not in accordance with objective morality. We ought to embody God's character traits, so all of God's laws are intrinsic moral laws and the position that some of God's laws are not intrinsic moral laws is the position that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws. For example, holiness is one of God's character traits, so holiness is a moral issue, and in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy as God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). God has not given any arbitrary laws based only on His authority, but rather all of God's laws are given in order to teach us how to embody His character traits and the way to honor God is through embodying His character traits. God's character traits are eternal, so none of God's laws teach us things about how to embody His character traits that are temporarily true. Everything that God's covenants teach us about how to embody God's character traits is eternal and cumulatively valid.

I agree, to add to what you said, to @Roger316, morality isn't subjective. We gain a sense of what is right and wrong from God. Which by definition, cannot be intrinsic. If that was the case, read Lord of the Flies as an example.

To go into more about what you said about the laws, God's words never pass away. That doesn't mean we forget what He said, it means that what He said, will always remain true. To say there are laws merely for authoritative reasons, bypasses the understanding of what the law was put there for in the first place. For instance, dietary laws are not just authoritative for the sake of authority. Every law, is for our benefit and if you study nutrition, look into what is marked off that list and how that plays into health. Also look into all the food that tends to have parasites or other organism issues.

So I will partially agree with your ending, but I think it's more about the misunderstanding of the law of Moses and say that it's beneficial and also moral.

(Edit: This was just to piggy back on what you said Soy, wasn't directed at you. Just wanted to clarify.)

 

[Soyeong]

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?

The purpose of the Torah is to teach us how to embody God's character traits and God's character traits are the fruits of the Spirit, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and why Paul contrasted 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 it. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character, which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in the Spirit/how to walk in obedience to the Torah and those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6), so the Torah describes the behavior of someone who is in Christ regardless of whether or not they need it.

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

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts. The fact that the Torah is a ministration of death for those who refuse to submit to it is not a very good reason for refusing to submit to it.

Salvation earned by self-effort and obedience, Christ Jesus teaches otherwise if you understand His message.

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 we are not extrinsically required to have first done those works in order to earn our salvation as the result of our self-effort, but rather we are intrinsically required to be a doer of those works because God graciously teaching us to experience being a doer of them is part of the content of His gift of salvation. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments of the Torah, and something that we inherit is a gift, so he was speaking about what is intrinsically required to experience the gift of eternal life, not about the way to earn it as the result of our self-effort.

 

[2Christ]

The New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing on our hearts (Jeremiah 31;33).


The Torah foreshadows Christ because he is the embodiment of it and by following his example of embodying it we are testifying about who he is. Those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6), so verses that refer to those who are in Christ are only referring to those who are following his example of walking in obedience to the Torah. The Sabbath is still a test whether we will follow God's instructions. All of God's righteous slaws are eternal (Psalm 119:160), so none of them will ever need reviving. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem 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 what he accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Torah (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 Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted 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 Torah.

the torah? again? all of it? GOD DECLARED THE THE COVENANT IS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS if is why it was placed in THE ARK OF THE COVENANT!!!!! you still wont change! you refuse to!

I have the verses to prove what I say. the new covenant is the ten commandments placed in our hearts and soul and flesh we live by them they are Love , they free us from sin. as per Jeremiah 31:31-33 Jesus said to follow the ten commandments Paul said the same and quoted Jeremiah !

However I agree with the rest.

 

[Soyeong]

So you would still perform animal sacrifices even after they were rendered unnecessary by Jesus' death?

It is absurd to think that God's Word made flesh has rendered God's Word unnecessary. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem 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 what Jesus accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Torah while the way to reject what he accomplished would be by returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from.

In Acts 2:42, they gathered each day in the Temple for the Temple prayers and for the sacred meal. In Acts 20:21-24, Paul planned to pay for the offerings of others in order to disprove false rumors that he had been teaching against obeying the Torah and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. In Hebrews 8:4, it speaks about offerings that were still being done in accordance with the Torah. So offerings did not cease with the death or resurrection of Jesus but only ceased because of the destruction of the Temple.

 

[pinebeach]

You proved my point from the OP. Automatically talking about works.

Actually, your op proves what people who do not assume things about others already know.

Carry on.

 

[Soyeong]

the torah? again? all of it? GOD DECLARED THE THE COVENANT IS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS if is why it was placed in THE ARK OF THE COVENANT!!!!! you still wont change! you refuse to!

I have the verses to prove what I say. the new covenant is the ten commandments placed in our hearts and soul and flesh we live by them they are Love , they free us from sin. as per Jeremiah 31:31-33 Jesus said to follow the ten commandments Paul said the same and quoted Jeremiah !

However I agree with the rest.

The fact that the Ten Commandments were placed in the Ark of the Covenant does not mean that they are the only commands that we should follow. In Jeremiah 31:33, it does not specify that it is only speaking about just ten of God's commandments, but rather it uses the Hebrew word "Torah". The Bible does not say that sin is the transgression of just ten of God's commandments, but rather sin is the transgression of any of God's commandments. For example, in James 2:1-11, he criticized them for committing the sin of favoritism, which isn't listed as one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus taught obedience to more than just the Ten Commandments in Matthew 5 alone.

 

[Soyeong]

Gotta be careful with Paul. He uses the word law in different ways. We are not under the law of Moses. We ARE under the law of Christ.

1 Corinthians 9:20-21
To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the Law, I became as one under the Law, though not being under the Law myself, so that I might gain those who are under the Law; to those who are without the Law, I became as one without the Law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might gain those who are without the Law.

There is also the "law of sin and death" Paul talks about. Can't even remember all of them but he uses the term in like 5 different ways. This is why Peter said what he did.

Think about it guys, all of these debated doctrines come from Paul, because people pit Paul against Jesus , James and the rest. By either doing the dispensational slight of hand and misinterpreting Paul thinking he had a whole different gospel. Or they are harmonizing incorrectly

Christ said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3) and Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to him without departing from it (Deuteronomy 5:31-33), so I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is not in complete accordance with the Law of Moses. Likewise in 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul used a parallel statement to equate not being without the Law of God with being under the Law of Christ. In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul said that he served the Law of God with his mind in contrast with serving the law of sin with his flesh and he said that the Law of the Spirit of Life has freed us from the law of sin and death, so the law of sin and death does not refer to the Law of God. Similarly, Paul said that our faith upholds the Law of God (Romans 3:31) in contrast with saying "works of the law" are not of faith (Galatians 3:10-12), so that phrase does not refer to the Law of God.

 

[Delvianna]

Actually, your op proves what people who do not assume things about others already know.

Carry on.

Not an assumption when people literally tell me obedience isn't required, or necessary. But if you want to act like it's an assumption, that's on you.

 

[biblestudent78]

Thing is, I have alot of awareness and I know a blowhard when I come across one. Take it to someone who does not see what I see. I will never be so bored so as to give you credence.

The thing is, again, I do not respond to your posts but you come along and decide we should converse. It's one sided. I bet the air gets cold when you enter a room.

Given your inability contend for that which you contend you believe, we on this forum must have to assume your few statement's leave you bankrupt of evidence or willingness to defend your dogmas. Adios.

 

[biblestudent78]

Thing is, I have alot of awareness and I know a blowhard when I come across one. Take it to someone who does not see what I see. I will never be so bored so as to give you credence.

The thing is, again, I do not respond to your posts but you come along and decide we should converse. It's one sided. I bet the air gets cold when you enter a room.

Please define "blowhard?"

 

[Bible_Locket]

Sorry, I assumed this was a place for people to honestly contend for their beliefs and are both will and capable of defending them without vituperative intent. You don't know me and I don't know you. Let's contend on the basis of honestly examining and defending our dogmas. If you have no awareness and not interest of where the things you believe so fervently historically originated, then why are you here? The theologies you seem to advocate for are at least 500 yrs old. It seems to me that by now one who accepts them should be happy to defend them.

Just as a FYI. The name is Martin Luther. Not Luber.