The Rejection of Obedience

[biblestudent78]

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.

I'm not sure if your thesis is accusatory or conforming. As anyone who cares to notice, the things Moses "wrote" were long before Hebrew as a literary language existed. Thus, later scribes wrote in "his name." Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the Hebrew on the street knew anything about the "Torah", until the 2nd century BC given their total unawareness of the Torah requirements until then. Before then there is no indication they knew anything about the Torah. When one quotes Deuteronomy one assumes compliance which never happened until the institution of the synagogue some time around 250 BC.

 

[biblestudent78]

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

Sorry. His family name via his father was "Luder." Look it up.

 

[Bible_Locket]

I'm not sure if your thesis is accusatory or conforming. As anyone who cares to notice, the things Moses "wrote" were long before Hebrew as a literary language existed. Thus, later scribes wrote in "his name." Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the Hebrew on the street knew anything about the "Torah", until the 2nd century BC given their total unawareness of the Torah requirements until then. Before then there is no indication they knew anything about the Torah. When one quotes Deuteronomy one assumes compliance which never happened until the institution of the synagogue some time around 250 BC.

Not exactly correct.

"Robust, structural Hebrew writing is archaeologically documented from the 10th to 8th centuries BC. Artifacts like the Gezer Calendar, the Siloam Inscription, and the Kuntillet Ajrud graffiti prove that a distinct, literary Hebrew language—written in the Paleo-Hebrew script—was active long before the Hellenistic era. [1]"

"The Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls (c. 600 BC): Unearthed near Jerusalem, these two tiny silver amulets are inscribed in Paleo-Hebrew. They contain the oldest surviving fragments of a Biblical text: the Priestly Blessing found verbatim in Numbers 6:24–26, as well as language closely mirroring Deuteronomy 7:9. This physically proves that core textual elements of the Torah were written and utilized in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile. [1, 2]"

 

[Bible_Locket]

Sorry. His family name via his father was "Luder." Look it up.

His name in the Christian historical record is,Luther.

 

[NightTwister]

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.

Why would you continue animal sacrifices that never paid for sin, when He who is perfect has come to pay for the sins of the elect once and for all? You make a mockery of His sacrifice by continuing that which is imperfect.

 

[pinebeach]

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.

We don't travel in the same circles. However, I've heard the same claims you are making in this forum many times. I think you are confusing the old and new testaments and people basically object to being told they have to keep the law when Jesus fulfilled it.

Now, the misunderstanding comes when people assume that means we can just keep sinning. It does not mean that. We recently had a thread with hundreds of pages and thousands of post and some people are still posting there. It's interesting in the bent towards the law that it has and the disregard for anything written past the gospels.

I think the following post sums it up quite well.

No genuine Christian would reject authentic obedience in the Christian life. What Christians reject is legalism masked as obedience, which culminates in works salvation and self-righteousness. (Matthew 7:22-23; Luke 18:9; Romans 10:1-4)

 

[Dave123]

so Dave, you keep the Ten Commandments just like Jesus asked us to do to enter into life?

By Keep, do you mean obey perfectly? That's what the Law requires. I do not keep the ten commandments. Only Jesus fulfilled the Law. You can assume worst case scenarios at this point, but as I said, no believer here is advocating to live by the flesh because of grace.

How about you, did Jesus misspeak when He said 'what is impossible for man is possible for God'? You have two choices. It's either you or Jesus who you trust in. One fulfills the Law for you. One puts you under the Law, guaranteeing that you will be judged by it at the great White throne judgment. Here is us under the Law --"then who can be saved"? "What is impossible for man is possible for God". Jesus came to fulfill the Law for us.

We do not earn, or maintain grace, if that were the case, it would not be grace. We evidence it.

D

Thread 'GOOD NEWS FOR LAWBREAKERS'

Jul 25, 2026

GOOD NEWS FOR LAWBREAKERS

Romans 3:19-20 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

There is just no way to wriggle out of it. The facts stare us in the face. None of us can look into the mirror of God's Law and feel good about ourselves. Not if we are honest. Along with everyone else, we are accountable to God. His holy standard makes us...

• Dave123
• Replies: 1
• Forum: Miscellaneous

• 

 

[Delvianna]

people basically object to being told they have to keep the law when Jesus fulfilled it.

So fulfillment to you is abolishment then? If Jesus didn't abolish the law, that makes it still in effect. Which means, following it, is still required and there are several verses that further that point that have already been discussed in this thread.

 

[pinebeach]

So fulfillment to you is abolishment then? If Jesus didn't abolish the law, that makes it still in effect. Which means, following it, is still required and there are several verses that further that point that have already been discussed in this thread.

Well, there it is. I said no such thing yet you assume I said abolished.

Thank God, the Bible is clear and does not claim your sad logic. When a person starts claiming another said something the other never said, it becomes clear the agenda is proving oneself right at the cost of misrepresenting any and all as has been seen elsewhere in this thread.

Those interactions speak for themselves.

 

[pinebeach]

Cover, not pay for. Read what I actually say, not what you want it to say.

Misrepresenting what other people say seems to be her way of assuring herself she is right.

 

[Delvianna]

Well, there it is. I said no such thing yet you assume I said abolished.

Thank God, the Bible is clear and does not claim your sad logic. When a person starts claiming another said something the other never said, it becomes clear the agenda is proving oneself right at the cost of misrepresenting any and all as has been seen elsewhere in this thread.

Those interactions speak for themselves.

Do you know what a question is?

So fulfillment to you is abolishment then?

Proceeded by a statement. It's not misrepresentation to ask a question...

 

[Churchgoer]

Why would you continue animal sacrifices that never paid for sin, when He who is perfect has come to pay for the sins of the elect once and for all? You make a mockery of His sacrifice by continuing that which is imperfect.

Some Still sacrificing animals? And called Christians?

 

[pinebeach]

Do you know what a question is?



Proceeded by a statement. It's not misrepresentation to ask a question...

I reject your ingrown attitude and desire to force everyone to either accept your personal opinions or be insulted by your false
assumptions and childish improvising on what another actually said.

You remind me of the child's story wherein the wolf says 'I will huff and puff and blow your house down'.

I know you are convinced of your own importance, but just imagine how many people there are in the world who will never ever read your posts.

 

[Mem]

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

So, you think that the new covenant is the old covenant written on our hearts even though God said it will not be the covenant they broke? Jeremiah 31:32

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),

And you think that the manner that Christ walked is speaking about the "Torah," and that as you see it, even though the subject of the chapter is about the gospel and the new commandment which is the "old commandment which you have had from the beginning," that is, "the message that you have heard." (1John 2:7-8).

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.

Never mind the question, this answers it.

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.

Surely you don't mean to imply any of God's law to be unrighteous? Yet there are some you no longer need to pay any attention to? Psalm 119:160 says, "The entirety of Your word is truth, and all your righteous judgments endure forever." God has judged to make the render the law obsolete, with those that walk by it rather than walking in Christ, however much you's like to 'judge' that you are walking in Him. You've judged that you keep Him by keeping the Sabbath. But I keep the Sabbath by abiding in Him. But it's okay, I know you don't get that any more than I get your idea.

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)

Your equating zealous for the law with zealous for good deeds, did you not continue reading after Acts 21:20? about Paul being persecuted by the Jews and his defense to the crowd of how he "was just as zealous" (Acts 22:3) and called the high priest a "whitewashed wall" being unaware that he was the high priest while fully aware of the law of Exodus 22:28? He was a Pharisee of Pharisees, after all, that knew the law better than the high priest! (Acts 23:3)

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.

And you ignore the reference to the law of sin and death which Christ set you free from to go back to it so that you will, ultimately, be rendered obsolete along with it, decaying, growing old, and ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13).

 

[Churchgoer]

They're confused. ‍

Confused? You are so kind.
Blessings.

 

[pinebeach]

For good measure, I will just post again this really great response to your op. I agree with the statement completely and really, there is nothing more to be said about it

No genuine Christian would reject authentic obedience in the Christian life. What Christians reject is legalism masked as obedience, which culminates in works salvation and self-righteousness. (Matthew 7:22-23; Luke 18:9; Romans 10:1-4)

 

[NightTwister]

Some Still sacrificing animals? And called Christians?

Nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[Delvianna]

I reject your ingrown attitude and desire to force everyone to either accept your personal opinions or be insulted by your false
assumptions and childish improvising on what another actually said.

You remind me of the child's story wherein the wolf says 'I will huff and puff and blow your house down'.

I know you are convinced of your own importance, but just imagine how many people there are in the world who will never ever read your posts.

That's rich coming from someone who says this to someone else:

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.

So I'm already aware of the attitude you have and just refuse to play to your games. You might want to take a step back and see yourself as the hypocrite you are before you accuse others of the very thing you started doing in this thread from the jump. If you want to read into something falsely, that's on you. But don't act like you're super innocent while you verbally insulted someone else and you want to make yourself out to be the good-guy in all this. Isn't happening, isn't working.

You want to mistake my directness for attitude, due to who I was already aware of the type of person I was dealing with since you acted like a jerk to someone else, that's fine. It doesn't bother me none, but I highly suggest you take a good hard look at yourself and the way you address people before you start throwing around accusations. Isn't very Christ-like. But I guess that doesn't matter to you does it? Which is clearly evident. Just like obedience doesn't seem to matter to you either. Coincidence? Doubtful.

Good luck to you.

 

[Churchgoer]

Nothing surprises me anymore.

It is wild wild west

 

[Roger316]

Are you aware of the Jewish concept of "tzekhut"? This is basically acting righteously and could be described as "anti-sin" acts. If one performs sufficient such acts, one could, in the Jewish understanding, become sinless, their righteous acts actually wiping out their sinful ones. In fact, if one accumulated sufficient "tzekhut", more than enough to wipe out one's own sins, one could share it with other people.

No, I have not heard of this. It sounds like many other religions have moral accounting systems.