What if repentance is not about feeling guilty, regretful or ashamed? How do you define repentance?

[OMC]

In Proverbs 3:1, it uses the Hebrew word "Torah", so it is certainly referring to obeying the Torah as the way to trust in God in all of our ways it was certainly given in accordance with God's wisdom. Likewise, in Revelation 22:14, those who kept God's commandments are given the right to eat from the Tree of Life, 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 in Hebrews 5:9, Jesus has become a source of eternal salvation for those who obey him. Before Adam and Eve had eaten from either Tree, they were at a crossroads between eternal life and mortality where eating from the Tree of Life would have given them to have eternal life while eating from the Tree of Knowledge caused them to become mortal, and in Deuteronomy 30:11-20, the Israelites were at the same crossroads where Moses placed before them a choice between life and a blessing for obedience to the Torah or death and a curse for disobedience to it. Likewise, God placed cherubim to guard the way back to the Garden and instructed for cherubim to guard the Ark of the Covenant, so we have the same choice of whether we are going to repent. The Bible also repeatedly refers to the Torah as being God's way, such as with Deuteronomy 10:12-13, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, and Psalm 119:1-3.

Proverbs 3 uses torah to describe God’s instruction, but the New Testament repeatedly says believers fulfill that instruction through the law of Christ (Gal 6:2) and the Spirit‑produced love that is the telos of the Torah (Rom 13:8–10), not by returning to the Sinai covenant, so your claim that eternal life requires obedience to the Mosaic Torah collapses because Jesus, Paul, and Hebrews all teach that the New Covenant replaces the old, even while preserving its moral core.

The Torah is God's commandments, so please explain how you can agree that the Law of Christ does not replace God's commandments while also taking the position that Christ's commandments replace the Torah.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has the character traits that the Torah was given in order to teach us how to embody, so the goal of Torah is to teach us how to love God through embodying His character traits, which is why the Bible repeatedly states in both the OT and the NT that the way to love God is by obeying His commandments. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah (Hebrews 1:3), so the way to love the Son is exactly the same as the way to love the Father and that the commandments of the Son are exactly the same as those of the Father. In John 14:23-24, Jesus said that if we love him, then we will obey his teachings, if we don't love him, then we will not obey his teachings, and that his teachings were not his own but that of the Father, so he did not teach his own set of commandments that are distinct from those of the Father. Likewise, in John 15:10, Jesus used a parallel statement to equate his commandments with those of the Father.

The reason why God's Word leads us to God's Word made flesh is because he is the embodiment of it and it was given for the purpose of teaching us how to know, love, worship, believe in, testify about, and be one with him through following his example of embodying it, but the reason why it leads us to him is not so that we can then reject everything that he is and go back to being doers of what it reveals to be wickedness. Christ was sent as the promised seed to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26). Someone who disregarded everything that their tutor taught them after their purpose has been fulfilled would be missing the whole point of their tutor

You are collapsing two categories Scripture keeps distinct:
God’s commandments (which express His unchanging character) and
the Sinai covenant (which was temporary, national, and fulfilled in Christ),
so when I say the law of Christ does not “replace God’s commandments,” I mean it does not replace God’s moral will, but it does replace the Sinai covenant, exactly as the NT repeatedly teaches (Jer 31:31–32; Heb 8:13; Gal 3:24–25);
Jesus’ commandments are the Father’s commandments because the Son perfectly reveals the Father (John 14:23–24), but that does not mean Jesus re‑institutes the Mosaic code, because the apostles explicitly say believers are not under the Law of Moses (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18), that the Sinai covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13), and that the Torah’s telos—its goal—is love produced by the Spirit (Rom 13:8–10), not renewed Torah‑keeping;
Christ embodied the Father’s character by perfectly fulfilling the Torah (Matt 5:17), but fulfilling a covenant is not the same as perpetuating it, and the NT never says the way to love God is “obey the Sinai covenant,” but “keep Christ’s commandments,” which are the New Covenant expression of the same divine character the Torah pointed to; the tutor analogy in Galatians means exactly this: the Torah leads us to Christ, and once we are united to Christ, we obey Christ’s words, not the covenant that served as the tutor.

 

[ScooterJackson]

There's an oft repeated heresy that defines the term to mean "turn from sin".
It's a modern way of saying "obey the law. "

Yeah because all the Christians in modern times sure like to enjoy their sinful behavior.

So they claim repenting from their sin is like being under the law.

They have been deceived by the devil not understanding or knowing that when a person sins they are sowing to the flesh and are reaping corruption which is why the Lord in His mercy and grace put 1 John 1:9 in the Bible along with all those warnings about those walking after the flesh are no longer in right standing with the Lord because they are no longer abiding in Christ

1 John 3:8 - He that committeth sin is of the devil
1 John 3:7 - Little children, let no man deceive you: he that DOES righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
1 John 3:6 - Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

Of course the "christian sinners" will claim 1 John is not actually scripture from the Lord.

 

[Soyeong]

Proverbs 3 uses torah to describe God’s instruction, but the New Testament repeatedly says believers fulfill that instruction through the law of Christ (Gal 6:2) and the Spirit‑produced love that is the telos of the Torah (Rom 13:8–10), not by returning to the Sinai covenant, so your claim that eternal life requires obedience to the Mosaic Torah collapses because Jesus, Paul, and Hebrews all teach that the New Covenant replaces the old, even while preserving its moral core.

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo), so Jesus proceeded to fulfill the Torah throughout the rest of Matthew 5 by correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has the character traits that the Torah was given in order to teach us how to embody, so the telos of the Torah is to teach us how to know, love, worship, believe in, testify about, and be one with Him through embodying His character traits, which includes love. It would be overwhelming to us for God to exhaustively teach us how to embody His character traits in every possible situation, so the point is to teach us them by abstracting them from a limited set of laws that all have His character traits in common. If we correctly understand a character trait, then it will lead us to take actions that embody that trait in accordance with what the Torah instructs even in situations that the Torah does not specifically address, but correctly understanding a character trait will never lead us away from following God's instructions for how to embody that trait.

God's character traits are the fruits of the Spirit, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Torah (Ezekiel 36:26-27). The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), 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 we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 21:22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). The reason why Jesus established the New Covenant was not in order nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather it still involves following the Torah (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments, so I don't see how you can say that my claim collapses based on what Jesus said.

You are collapsing two categories Scripture keeps distinct:
God’s commandments (which express His unchanging character) and
the Sinai covenant (which was temporary, national, and fulfilled in Christ),
so when I say the law of Christ does not “replace God’s commandments,” I mean it does not replace God’s moral will, but it does replace the Sinai covenant, exactly as the NT repeatedly teaches (Jer 31:31–32; Heb 8:13; Gal 3:24–25);
Jesus’ commandments are the Father’s commandments because the Son perfectly reveals the Father (John 14:23–24), but that does not mean Jesus re‑institutes the Mosaic code, because the apostles explicitly say believers are not under the Law of Moses (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18), that the Sinai covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13), and that the Torah’s telos—its goal—is love produced by the Spirit (Rom 13:8–10), not renewed Torah‑keeping;
Christ embodied the Father’s character by perfectly fulfilling the Torah (Matt 5:17), but fulfilling a covenant is not the same as perpetuating it, and the NT never says the way to love God is “obey the Sinai covenant,” but “keep Christ’s commandments,” which are the New Covenant expression of the same divine character the Torah pointed to; the tutor analogy in Galatians means exactly this: the Torah leads us to Christ, and once we are united to Christ, we obey Christ’s words, not the covenant that served as the tutor.

Can you please quote where the Bible states that "the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled in Christ"? Or can you quote where the Bible states what is required to fulfill the Mosaic Covenant or even where it states that it is something that can be fulfilled?

New covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so all of God's covenants are eternal and cumulatively valid. The Mosaic Covenant is not temporary, but rather it is eternal (Exodus 31:16, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it be made obsolete by the New Covenant would be if it were cumulative with it. One thing can only make another thing obsolete if it is cumulative with it, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, which means that if the New Covenant were not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete. So the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator. The fault that God found with the Mosaic Covenant was not with His character traits or with His instructions for how to embody them, but rather God found fault with the people for not continuing in their covenant (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 it. This is why the New Covenant involves God sending His Son to free us from sin so that we might be free to meet the righteous requirement of the Torah (Romans 8:3-4), God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah (Ezekiel 36:26-27), and God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).

The only way that the Mosaic Covenant could temporary would be if what it teaches us about how to embody God's character traits is also temporary, but God's character traits are eternal, so everything it teaches us about how to embody His character traits is eternal and cumulatively valid. Morality is base on God's character traits, so everything in the Torah is inherently part of God's moral will. The Son perfectly revealed the Father by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to embody His character traits in obedience to the Torah. Christ said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), so I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is not in perfect accordance with every word that God spoke to Moses. We can't obey Christ's words instead of even word that comes from the mouth of God.

(Rom 6:14;

In Romans 5-8, Paul described the Law of God as being something that is the good that he wanted to do in contrast with describing the law of sin as being something that was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do. In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over him, which is clearly not describing something that is the good that he wanted to do, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is, so we are still under the Law of God. Moreover, everything else in Romans 6 contrasts these two directions by speaking in favor of obedience to the Law of God and against sin.

Gal 5:18),

In Romans 7:25-8:2. Paul said that he served the Law of God with his mind in contrast with saying that he served the law of sin with his flesh, he said that the Law of the Spirit of Life has freed us from the law of sin and death, and he 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 Law of God, so that informs how we should understand which law Galatians 5:18 is referring to us as not being under when we are led by the Spirit. In Galatians 5:16-23, Paul contrasted the desires of the Spirit with the desires of the flesh causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which is how he described his struggle with the law of sin in Romans 7, and everything that he listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Law of Moses while all of the fruits of the Spirit as aspects of God's character traits that the Law of Moses was given in order to teach us how to embody, so it is the law of sin that we are not under when we are led by the Spirit. The Law of Moses was given by God and the Spirit is God, so it would be contradictory to interpret Galatians 5:18 as referring to the Law of God as if we are not led by God when we are led by God.

 

[biblestudent78]

There are a number of ways where Eve's desires influenced her perception (Genesis 3:6) and our desires cloud our judgements so that if we lean only on our own understanding of good and evil, then we can't be sure if something is truly good of if we just think that it is good because we desire it. If we desire to do something that is contrary to the Torah, then we have a choice between leaning on our own understanding of good and evil by doing what is right in our own eyes or whether we are going to trust in God with all of our hearts to correctly divide between good and evil through obeying the Torah in all of our ways and He will make our way straight (Proverbs 3:1-7), which is the choice between the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life (Proverbs 3:18). Repentance is about turning away from doing what is right in our eyes and trusting God to guide us in how to rightly live through obeying the Torah in all of our ways.

Soyeong:
To start, Proverbs is not part of the Torah
A very interesting perspective. I honestly have never considered my theological framework and belief system to include much if anything in the Torah. Torah compliance leaves a few problems for modern folks:
You may not worship God except in Israel Deut 12:57
You could have debt slaves of israelites but they went free after 7 yrs
You could have as many foreign slaves as you want even foreigner living in your country
If you have a male slave a wife, then she and all children were kept as permanent slaves even if the father was freed.
A child could be put to death for cursing a parent
We must not destroy anything with God's name on it Deuteronomy 12:4
Not to suppress the weak or allow other to do so Exodus 22:21
Not to take revenge—Leviticus 19:18
Not to bear a grudge—Leviticus 19:18
Not to make human forms even for decorative purposes—Exodus 20:20
To burn a city that has turned to idol worship—Deuteronomy 13:17
Not to perform acts of magic—Deuteronomy 18:10
Men must not shave the hair off the sides of their head—Leviticus 19:27
Men must not shave their beards with a razor—Leviticus 19:27
Women must not wear men's clothing—Deuteronomy 22:5
Not to tattoo the skin—Leviticus 19:28
Put a Mezuzah on each door post—Deuteronomy 6:9
To circumcise all males on the eighth day after their birth—Leviticus 12:3
Not to do prohibited labor on the seventh day—Exodus 20:10
To issue a divorce by means of a Get document—Deuteronomy 24:1
The slanderer must remain married to the wife he slandered—Deuteronomy 22:19
A woman must not have sexual relations with a beast—Leviticus 18:23
Not to marry non-Jews—Deuteronomy 7:3
Not to castrate any male (including animals)--Leviticus 22:24
Not to eat the sinew of the thigh—Genesis. 32:33
Not to plant diverse seeds together—Leviticus 19:19
Not to crossbreed animals—Leviticus 19:19
Not to wear Shatnez, a cloth woven of wool and linen—Deuteronomy 22:11
To leave a corner of the field uncut for the poor—Leviticus 19:10
Not to withhold charity from the poor—Deuteronomy 15:7
To set aside the first fruits and bring them to the Temple—Exodus 23:19
To release all loans during the seventh year—Deuteronomy 15:3
Not to offer animals bought with the wages of a harlot or the animal exchanged for a dog—Deuteronomy 23:19
Carry out the procedure of the Red Heifer—Numbers 19:9

This is just a few of the commandments in the Torah. Many would find it "difficult" to keep Torah.

 

[OMC]

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo), so Jesus proceeded to fulfill the Torah throughout the rest of Matthew 5 by correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has the character traits that the Torah was given in order to teach us how to embody, so the telos of the Torah is to teach us how to know, love, worship, believe in, testify about, and be one with Him through embodying His character traits, which includes love. It would be overwhelming to us for God to exhaustively teach us how to embody His character traits in every possible situation, so the point is to teach us them by abstracting them from a limited set of laws that all have His character traits in common. If we correctly understand a character trait, then it will lead us to take

You are treating Torah as a timeless, covenant‑neutral revelation of God’s character, but Scripture never does that; it treats God’s character as eternal, and the Sinai covenant as temporary, fulfilled, and replaced, so when Jesus “fulfills the law” (Matt 5:17) He does not teach Israel to perpetuate the Sinai treaty but to obey God’s will as the law always pointed beyond itself, which is why the prophets explicitly say the New Covenant writes God’s instruction on the heart (Jer 31:33) but simultaneously declares the Sinai covenant broken (Jer 31:32), and why Ezekiel 36:26–27 says the Spirit causes obedience to God’s statutes, not a return to the Sinai code; your argument collapses because you equate “God’s commandments” with “the Mosaic covenant,” but the NT never does — it says believers are not under the law of Moses (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18), that the Sinai covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13), and that the Torah’s telos is love produced by the Spirit (Rom 13:8–10), not renewed Torah‑keeping; Jesus’ affirmation in Luke 10:25–28 does not reinstate the Sinai covenant but identifies the moral core that the New Covenant now expresses through the law of Christ (Gal 6:2), so the greatest commandments remain, but the covenant they once belonged to does not, meaning eternal life is tied to loving God and neighbor, not to re‑entering the treaty God Himself declared obsolete — the distinction you must maintain is God’s moral will vs. the Mosaic covenant, and the NT consistently binds believers to the former and releases them from the latter.

Can you please quote where the Bible states that "the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled in Christ"? Or can you quote where the Bible states what is required to fulfill the Mosaic Covenant or even where it states that it is something that can be fulfilled?

New covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so all of God's covenants are eternal and cumulatively valid. The Mosaic Covenant is not temporary, but rather it is eternal (Exodus 31:16, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it be made obsolete by the New Covenant would be if it were cumulative with it. One thing can only make another thing obsolete if it is cumulative with it, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, which means that if the New Covenant

Scripture says the Mosaic covenant reaches its designed end in Christ through explicit “until/then/obsolete/set‑aside” language—Christ says He came to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17) and that everything written in the Law must be fulfilled in Him (Luke 24:44); Paul says the law was added until the Seed came (Gal 3:19), was a tutor until Christ and that after faith comes we are no longer under the tutor (Gal 3:23–25), and that Christ is the telos of the law (Rom 10:4); Hebrews says Christ’s priesthood requires a change of law (Heb 7:12), that a former commandment is set aside (7:18), that God takes away the first to establish the second (10:9), and that by announcing a new covenant He made the first obsolete (8:13); these are the inspired descriptions of covenant fulfillment, and they directly override your appeal to “eternal” statutes, because the NT itself says the “forever” Aaronic priesthood (Ex 29:9) is ended in Christ (Heb 7:11–28), proving “olam” means “for the duration of that covenantal arrangement,” not metaphysical eternity.

In Romans 5-8, Paul described the Law of God as being something that is the good that he wanted to do in contrast with describing the law of sin as being something that was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do. In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over him, which is clearly not describing something that is the good that he wanted to do, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is, so we are still under the Law of God. Moreover, everything else in Romans 6 contrasts these two directions by speaking in favor of obedience to the Law of God and against sin.

Brother, you’re misreading Paul’s contrast: in Romans 6:14 “not under law but under grace” cannot mean “not under the law of sin,” because Paul never uses nomos for the law of sin in Romans 5–8; he calls that force “sin dwelling in me” and “the law of sin” only in metaphor (Rom 7:23), but when he says nomos without qualification he means the Mosaic law, which is why the same section says we “died to the law” (Rom 7:4), were “released from the law” (7:6), and that the law’s jurisdiction ends when we are united to Christ. Romans 7:7–12 proves the Mosaic law is holy and good, but Romans 7:5–6 proves its covenantal jurisdiction produced death because of the flesh, not because the law was evil; therefore Paul’s point is not “the law of sin had dominion over me,” but “the Mosaic law, when encountered in the flesh, resulted in sin’s dominion,” which is why he says “sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” And Romans 8:3–4 seals the distinction: God did what the law could not do, condemning sin in the flesh so that the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us who walk by the Spirit, meaning the moral will of God is fulfilled, but the covenantal jurisdiction of Moses is not reinstated.

In Romans 7:25-8:2. Paul said that he served the Law of God with his mind in contrast with saying that he served the law of sin with his flesh, he said that the Law of the Spirit of Life has freed us from the law of sin and death, and he 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 Law of God, so that informs how we should understand which law Galatians 5:18 is referring to us as not being under when we are led by the Spirit.

Galatians 5:18 cannot mean “not under the law of sin,” because Paul never uses nomos that way; when he says nomos without qualification, he means the Mosaic law, and that is why the same letter says the law was “added until the Seed should come” (Gal 3:19), was a tutor until Christ, and that “after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Gal 3:25), which is the exact category Gal 5:18 repeats: “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” Romans 7–8 does not redefine nomos to mean “law of sin”; Paul distinguishes the law of God (good), the law of sin (a power), and the Mosaic law’s covenantal jurisdiction, which produced death because of the flesh (Rom 7:5, 10–11), and from which believers are released (Rom 7:6). Your argument collapses because you treat “law of God” and “Law of Moses” as identical categories, but Paul does not: the moral will of God is fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit (Rom 8:4), but the covenantal jurisdiction of Moses is precisely what believers are no longer under (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18). The works of the flesh violate both God’s moral will and the Mosaic code, but the fruits of the Spirit fulfill the righteous requirement of the law without reinstating the Sinai covenant; Paul’s point is not “the Spirit leads you back under Moses,” but “the Spirit produces the obedience Moses pointed to but could not create.”

 

[ScooterJackson]

Proverbs is not part of the Torah

Correct. Proverbs is God's Wisdom which is true under the old and the new covenants

 

[Genez]

And yet we have all these reformed people going around telling everyone they were born sinners, they sin in thought word and deed every day, and they cannot stop sinning.

It's no wonder people out in the world laugh at Christians after hearing the reformed nutjobs teach their false gospel claiming it's what the Lord teaches.

Even if what we believe is correct?
The world would still laugh.

If a Christian learns over time to avoid the pitfalls that suck many Christians into all sorts of errors.
These ones who learn will by grace overcome the pressures.
These ones become the overcomers.

He who overcomes (is victorious), I will grant him to sit beside Me on My throne,
as I Myself overcame (was victorious) and sat down beside My Father on His throne. Revelation 3:21

The overcomers became able to stand still and secure in a world of confused confusion makers.

The only way to that state of being?

Sound doctrine learned while being in the filling of the Spirit produces sound thinking.

 

[ScooterJackson]

The world would still laugh.

They especially laugh at hypocrisy which is what the majority of so called Christians are displaying

They are going to hell for good reason.

Yes, right along with the majority of so called Christians
Most claiming to be Christians today are actually tares

Sound doctrine learned while being in the filling of the Spirit produces sound thinking.

Those following sound doctrine don't belong to any of the denominations or listen to any of the popular preachers especially guys like calvin and luther or any of these popes the catholics idolize

One must be taught directly by the Holy Spirit based on God's Word to walk in sound doctrine

 

[Genez]

They especially laugh at hypocrisy which is what the majority of so called Christians are displaying



Yes, right along with the majority of so called Christians
Most claiming to be Christians today are actually tares



Those following sound doctrine don't belong to any of the denominations or listen to any of the popular preachers especially guys like calvin and luther or any of these popes the catholics idolize

One must be taught directly by the Holy Spirit based on God's Word to walk in sound doctrine

It is not to be just us and the Holy Spirit alone.
Translations can too often be misleading when the intent of the Greek and Hebrew, and the historical setting is not understood.

God has given us a few pastor-teachers for good reason.
Though there will be many to choose from.
If you find a good one?
You will know then why that has to be.


Paul was shown by God what was coming...

For the time will come when they will not put up with sound doctrine. ​

Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great ​

number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3​

There are a few good teachers yet among us.

 

[ScooterJackson]

God has given us a few pastor-teachers for good reason.

Yes and Jesus warned in Math 24 that many will come in His Name and will deceive many
God's Word contains many warnings concerning false doctrine.

If you find a good one?

I found the Perfect Teacher - the Holy Spirit Jesus sent to me to lead and guide me in to all Truth

There are a few good teachers yet among us.

No good teacher espouses reformed theology or catholicism, that's for sure.

 

[Genez]

Yes and Jesus warned in Math 24 that many will come in His Name and will deceive many
God's Word contains many warnings concerning false doctrine.



I found the Perfect Teacher - the Holy Spirit Jesus sent to me to lead and guide me in to all Truth



No good teacher espouses reformed theology or catholicism, that's for sure.

The Holy Spirit has led and guided me to finding an excellent pastor-teacher.
One that teaches Scripture from the original languages and provides eye opening historical settings for what was written.

The Holy Spirit is to lead and guide you into finding the right pastor-teacher for your needs.

Until then? You're on your own.

 

[Soyeong]

Part 1/2

You are treating Torah as a timeless, covenant‑neutral revelation of God’s character, but Scripture never does that; it treats God’s character as eternal, and the Sinai covenant as temporary, fulfilled, and replaced,

Do you think that what the Torah teaches about God is temporarily true or eternal true? The only way that the Torah can be temporary is if the God who has the character traits that the Torah was given in order to teach us how to embody is also temporary. It would be contradictory for God's character traits to be eternal while His instructions for how to embody His character traits are temporary. The Bible never sats that the Torah is temporary, but rather is says that all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:160) and repeatedly says things like this is a statute forever throughout your generations. If the Mosaic Covenant were temporary, then its promises would also be temporary and God would be a liar. The Bible never states that the Mosaic Covenant is temporary, fulfilled, or replaced by something different, but rather it states that it is eternal (Exodus 31:16, Leviticus).

so when Jesus “fulfills the law” (Matt 5:17) He does not teach Israel to perpetuate the Sinai treaty but to obey God’s will as the law always pointed beyond itself,

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Torah in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it and he warned against relaxing the least part of it, so Jesus fulfilling the law should not be interpreted as meaning the same thing as abolishing our obligation to obey it or as relaxing even the least part of it, but rather he fulfilled the Torah by teaching us how to correctly obey it. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Torah, so again it refers to correctly obeying it, moreover, it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that only Jesus did. God has made His will known through what He has commanded in the Torah (Psalm 40:8).

which is why the prophets explicitly say the New Covenant writes God’s instruction on the heart (Jer 31:33) but simultaneously declares the Sinai covenant broken (Jer 31:32),

The Torah has always been intended to be written on our heart (Deuteronomy 10:12-16) and there is nothing about it being written on our hearts that means that we shouldn't obey the Torah, but rather it is written on our hearts so that we will obey it. God's character traits are eternal, so there is nothing about the Mosaic Covenant being made or being broken that changed the way to embody His character traits.

and why Ezekiel 36:26–27 says the Spirit causes obedience to God’s statutes, not a return to the Sinai code;

God has not commenced anything that is not in accordance with walking in the Spirit, but rather the Torah is His instructions for how to embody His character traits and His character traits are the fruits of the Spirit, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the mishpatim and chukim, which are the two main categories of law in the Torah.

your argument collapses because you equate “God’s commandments” with “the Mosaic covenant,” but the NT never does

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to Him without departing from it, which is why the Law of Moses is called the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

— it says believers are not under the law of Moses (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18),

You have given no justification for why those verses should be interpreted as referring to the Law of Moses, especially because that would be contrary to the context of both of those verses.

that the Sinai covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13),

In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involves following the Torah, so the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete does not mean that followers of Christ should no longer follow the example that Christ set for his followers to follow of how to walk in obedience to it.

and that the Torah’s telos is love produced by the Spirit (Rom 13:8–10),

It is contradictory to follow God's command to love instead of His commands for how to do that.

not renewed Torah‑keeping; Jesus’ affirmation in Luke 10:25–28 does not reinstate the Sinai covenant but identifies the moral core that the New Covenant now expresses through the law of Christ (Gal 6:2), so the greatest commandments remain, but the covenant they once belonged to does not, meaning eternal life is tied to loving God and neighbor, not to re‑entering the treaty God Himself declared obsolete —

The reason why the commandments to love God and our neighbor are the greatest two commandments is because they are inclusive of all of the other commandments. If someone thought that they only needed to love God and their neighbor, so they didn't need to refrain from committing idolatry, favoritism, or kidnapping, then they would have an incomplete understanding of what it means to love God and our neighbor, and the same is true for everything else in the Torah. The New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds handwriting it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), so I have been speaking about the way to live under the New Covenant and those who want nothing to do with following Christ's example of obedience to the Torah also want nothing to do with being under the New Covenant.

the distinction you must maintain is God’s moral will vs. the Mosaic covenant, and the NT consistently binds believers to the former and releases them from the latter.

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do, we ought to embody God's character traits, and the purpose of the Torah is to teach us how to embody God's character traits, so everything in the Mosaic Covenant is inherently in accordance with God's moral will. Legislators give laws in accordance with their understanding of what ought to be done, so to claim that some of God's laws are not part of the moral law is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and is therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God. Nothing in the NT releases us from our obligation to obey the Law of Moses.

Scripture says the Mosaic covenant reaches its designed end in Christ through explicit “until/then/obsolete/set‑aside” language—Christ says He came to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17) and that everything written in the Law must be fulfilled in Him (Luke 24:44);

To fulfill the law means "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo. Again, Jesus said that that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it and he warned against relaxing the least part of it, so Jesus fulfill the law should not be interpreted as meaning no, he really came to abolish it or relax parts of it. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, yet you do not consistently interpret that as setting aside the Law of Christ.

Paul says the law was added until the Seed came (Gal 3:19),

The Hebrew concept of unit can mean "up to this point" without implying a change, which is how Luke 16:16-18 can speak about the law being until John and then continue to teach obedience to it. Jesus did not come with the message to stop repenting because the Law of God has ended now that he has come and we have been freed to become doers of what it reveals to be wickedness, but rather he came with the Gospel message to repent from our disobedience to it, which is in accordance with him being sent as the promise Seed to bless us by turning us from our wickedness.

 

[Soyeong]

Part 2/2

was a tutor until Christ and that after faith comes we are no longer under the tutor (Gal 3:23–25),

Someone no longer being under a tutor does not mean that they should then disregard everything that their tutor taught them. In Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, through faith, in Christ, and children of Abraham and heirs of the promise is directly connected with being doers of the Law of God. In 1 John 3:10, those who are not doers of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God are not children of God. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds the Law of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doers of the same works as him.

and that Christ is the telos of the law (Rom 10:4);

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in. Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the telos of the Law is to graciously teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life.

Hebrews says Christ’s priesthood requires a change of law (Heb 7:12)

God's righteousness and righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:142, 160), so Hebrews 7:12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery or sinful to do charity, but rather the context is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would require a change of the law in regard it is administration. A priesthood led by God's Word made flesh does not involve departing from God's Word. While "olam" can refer to with either a temporary or eternal period of time, the easy way to resolve this is whether God's righteousness is temporary or eternal.

In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet is if they speak against obeying the Torah, so if you agree that the Apostles were servants of God, then you should be opposed to you interpreting them as speaking against obeying the Torah, and if you think that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the Torah, then you should be opposed to considering them to be servants of God, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to the Torah. Deuteronomy 13 does not leave room for someone to think both that Hebrews was written by a servant of God and that it should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the Torah. If you think that the author of Hebrews spoke against obeying God and that God spoke against obeying the author of Hebrews, then you should obey God instead of the author of Hebrews. if you interpret the NT as speaking against obeying the OT and the OT as speaking against obeying the NT, then you are just making a complete mess of the Bible.

Brother, you’re misreading Paul’s contrast:

In Romans 7:25, Paul said that he served the Law (nomos) or God with his mind in contrast with serving the law (nomos) of sin with his flesh, so he used it to refer to both. In Romans 5-8, Paul said that the Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted in obeying it, and that he served it with his mind in contrast with the law of sin, which was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which was again war against the law of his mind, which he served with his flesh, and which held him captive, and which the law of the Spirit has freed us from. In Romans 7:22, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:5 as referring the Law of God as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order bear fruit unto death. Likewise, it would be would absurd to Romans 7:6 as if Paul delighted in being held captive to sin, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive (Romans 7:23). Likewise a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful and not holy, righteous and good, so the law in Romans 7:5 can't be referring to the same law as Romans 7:7 or 7:12.

In Romans 6:19-23, we are no longer to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin, but are now to present ourselves to God as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift of God, so being a doer of the Law of God is His gift of eternal life (Luke 10:25-28). If someone is not being careful to discern which law Paul was referring to, then they can interpreting Romans 7:1-4 as saying that we need to die to God's gift of eternal life. At no point was the woman set free from needing to obey the Law of God, and if she were to get married to a second husband after the death of her first, then she would still be required to refrain from committing adultery, so there is nothing that leads to the conclusion in Romans 7:4 that in the same way we have been set free from obeying the Law of God. It doesn't make any sense to interpret Romans 7;4 as saying that the way to become unified with God's Word made flesh is by refusing to follow his example of embodying God's Word or to think that the way to bear fruit for God is by dying to His instructions for how to bear fruit for Him, but rather we need to die to a law that was hindering us from doing that, which is the law of sin.

There is nothing inherent to the Law of Moses that causes sin to have dominion over us, but rather it leads us to repent from our sins and to do what is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). It is the law of sin that is working with in us that reacts to the Law of Moses that causes sin to increase and that causes sin to have dominion over us. 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, and this is why those who are under grace are not permitted to transgress the Law of Moses (Romans 6:15). In Romans 8:3-4, God set us free from the law of sin so that we could be free to meet the righteous requirement of the Law of Moses, so we need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of Moses, not the other way around.

Galatians 5:18 cannot mean “not under the law of sin,” because Paul never uses nomos that way; when he says nomos without qualification, he means the Mosaic law,

You have no justification for making that claim in order to ignore the context of how Paul used "nomos". Paul used "nomos" in over 10 different ways, so we always need to discern which category of law he is referring to every time he uses that word.

I agree that Paul did not redefine nomos to mean "law of sin", but rather it can refer to the Law of God, the law of sin, or some other category of law depending on the context of how he used it. Paul also referred to the law of sin simply as "sin". For example, in Romans 7:8, sin [the law of sin] seiszed the opportunity through the Law of God to produce all kinds of coveting and sin would lie dead apart from the law of sin. In 7:12-13, Paul said that the Law of God is good and that it was not that which is good that brought death to him, but sin [the law of sin] acting through that which is good to produce sin, yet by conflating the Law of God with the law of sin you are interpreting Paul as if he was saying that it was what is good that brought death to him. The Law of Moses does not have the power to cause us to embody it, but embodying it through faith in Christ and the leading of the Spirit is not doing something other than obeying or being under it. Again, Paul contrasting the desires of the Spirit with the desires of the flesh causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do is exactly how he describe his struggle with the law of sin. In Romans 8:2-7, Paul said that the Law of the Spirit has freed us from the law of sin and death and he 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 Law of God, which does not leave any room to interpret Galatians 5:18 as saying that we aren't under the Law of God when we are led by the Spirit rather than not being under the law of sin when we are led by the Spirit.

 

[OMC]

Do you think that what the Torah teaches about God is temporarily true or eternal true? The only way that the Torah can be temporary is if the God who has the character traits that the Torah was given in order to teach us how to embody is also temporary. It would be contradictory for God's character traits to be eternal while His instructions for how to embody His character traits are temporary. The Bible

You’re collapsing categories Scripture keeps distinct, because the Torah’s moral revelation is eternal but its Sinai covenantal form is explicitly temporary—obsolete (Heb 8:13), set aside (Heb 7:18), until the Seed came (Gal 3:19), and something believers have died to (Rom 7:4)—so God’s character remains forever while the Mosaic treaty does not.

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Torah in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it and he warned against relaxing the least part of it, so Jesus fulfilling the law should not be interpreted as meaning the same thing as abolishing our obligation to obey it or as relaxing even the least part of it, but rather he fulfilled the Torah by teaching us how to correctly obey it. According to Galatians 5:14,

You’re missing the distinction Jesus and Paul make: “fulfill” in Matt 5:17 means bring to completion, not perpetuate Sinai, and the NT explicitly calls the Sinai covenant temporary and obsolete (Gal 3:19, 25; Rom 7:4; Heb 7:18; 8:13), so God’s moral will is eternal, but the Mosaic treaty is not.

The Torah has always been intended to be written on our heart (Deuteronomy 10:12-16) and there is nothing about it being written on our hearts that means that we shouldn't obey the Torah, but rather it is written on our hearts so that we will obey it. God's character traits are eternal, so there is nothing about the Mosaic Covenant being made or being broken that changed the way to embody His character traits.

You’re missing the prophetic distinction, because Deut 10:12–16 calls Israel to have God’s instruction on the heart, but Jer 31:32–33 explicitly says the Sinai covenant was broken and the New Covenant writes God’s instruction on the heart in a different covenantal form, so God’s eternal character remains while the Mosaic treaty does not.

God has not commenced anything that is not in accordance with walking in the Spirit, but rather the Torah is His instructions for how to embody His character traits and His character traits are the fruits of the Spirit, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the mishpatim and chukim, which are the two main categories of law in the Torah.

You’re collapsing categories again, because Ezek 36:26–27 describes the Spirit producing obedience to God’s statutes under the New Covenant, while the NT says this obedience happens apart from the Sinai code—the Sinai covenant is broken (Jer 31:32), temporary (Gal 3:19), set aside (Heb 7:18), obsolete (Heb 8:13), and something believers have died to (Rom 7:4)—so the Spirit forms obedience to God’s eternal moral will, not a return to the Mosaic treaty.

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to Him without departing from it, which is why the Law of Moses is called the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

You’re drawing the wrong conclusion, because calling the Mosaic legislation “the Law of God” (Deut 5:31–33; Neh 8:1–8; Ezra 7:6–12; Luke 2:22–23) simply means Moses wrote down what God commanded for that covenant, not that the Sinai covenant itself is eternal, and the NT explicitly says that covenant is temporary (“added until the Seed came,” Gal 3:19), no longer binding (Gal 3:25), something believers have died to (Rom 7:4), set aside (Heb 7:18), and now obsolete (Heb 8:13), proving that God’s eternal moral will is not identical to the Mosaic treaty, even though the treaty once expressed it.

You have given no justification for why those verses should be interpreted as referring to the Law of Moses, especially because that would be contrary to the context of both of those verses.

Paul explicitly defines the “law” in those contexts as the Mosaic law, because in Romans 6:14 the contrast is “under law” vs “under grace” developed from his prior argument about the Torah condemning sin (Rom 3:19–20; 4:15; 5:20), and in Galatians 5:18 the “law” is the same law he has just said believers are no longer under—the Sinai covenant added until the Seed came (Gal 3:19, 23–25)—so your objection fails because you’re trying to detach Paul’s “law” from the very Mosaic system he is explicitly dismantling in the surrounding chapters.

In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involves following the Torah, so the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete does not mean that followers of Christ should no longer follow the example that Christ set for his followers to follow of how to walk in obedience to it.

Hebrews 8:10 says the New Covenant writes God’s law on the heart, but Hebrews 8:13 says the Sinai covenant is “obsolete,” and the NT repeatedly says believers obey God’s eternal moral will apart from the Mosaic treaty—we have died to the law (Rom 7:4), are not under the law (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18), the Sinai code was added until the Seed came (Gal 3:19), and its “former commandment” is set aside (Heb 7:18)—so your argument collapses because you equate “Torah written on the heart” with “Sinai covenant still binding,” when Scripture explicitly separates the two.

It is contradictory to follow God's command to love instead of His commands for how to do that.

It is not contradictory because love is the telos of the Torah (Rom 13:8–10), meaning love fulfills the law’s moral intent, and the NT explicitly says believers obey God’s eternal moral will through Spirit‑produced love rather than through the Sinai code—we are not under the law (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18), the Sinai covenant was added until the Seed came (Gal 3:19), is now obsolete (Heb 8:13), and believers have died to it (Rom 7:4)—so your argument collapses because you treat “love fulfills the law” as “love replaces the law,” when Paul says love is what the law was always aiming at.

The reason why the commandments to love God and our neighbor are the greatest two commandments is because they are inclusive of all of the other commandments. If someone thought that they only needed to love God and their neighbor, so they didn't need to refrain from committing idolatry, favoritism, or kidnapping, then they would have an incomplete understanding of what it means to love God and

You’re missing the NT’s own distinction, because the two greatest commandments summarize the Torah (Matt 22:37–40) but fulfillment is not perpetuation—love is the law’s telos (Rom 13:8–10), the law of Christ is its New‑Covenant expression (Gal 6:2), and the Sinai covenant that once housed those commands is called broken (Jer 31:32), temporary (Gal 3:19), no longer binding (Gal 3:25; 5:18), something believers have died to (Rom 7:4), and now obsolete (Heb 8:13), so God’s eternal moral will remains while the Mosaic treaty does not.

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do, we ought to embody God's character traits, and the purpose of the Torah is to teach us how to embody God's character traits, so everything in the Mosaic Covenant is inherently in accordance with God's moral will. Legislators give

You’re collapsing categories Scripture separates, because God’s moral will is eternal while the Sinai covenant that expressed it is explicitly temporary—“added until the Seed came” (Gal 3:19), “no longer under the tutor” (Gal 3:25), believers have “died to the law” (Rom 7:4), the “former commandment is set aside” (Heb 7:18), and the covenant is “obsolete” (Heb 8:13)—so denying the ongoing authority of the Mosaic treaty is not claiming God made a moral error, but simply agreeing with Scripture that His unchanging righteousness is now expressed through the law of Christ rather than through the Sinai code.

 

[OMC]

Someone no longer being under a tutor does not mean that they should then disregard everything that their tutor taught them. In Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, through faith, in Christ, and children of Abraham and heirs of the promise is directly connected with being doers of the Law of God. In 1 John 3:10, those who are not doers of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God are not children of God. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds the Law of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doers of the same works as him.

You’re missing Paul’s point, because “no longer under the tutor” (Gal 3:25) means no longer under the Sinai covenant, and the NT says believers obey God’s moral will apart from the Mosaic code—we are not under the law (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18), have died to it (Rom 7:4), and the covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13)—so doing righteousness is not the same thing as re‑entering the Sinai treaty.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in. Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the telos of the Law is to graciously teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life.

You’re missing Paul’s point, because Rom 10:4 says Christ is the telos—the completion and goal—of the law, not the continuation of the Sinai covenant, and the NT repeatedly says that covenant was temporary (“added until the Seed came”), no longer binding (Gal 3:25; 5:18), something believers have died to (Rom 7:4), and is now obsolete (Heb 8:13), so your appeal to Exod 33:13 and Matt 7:23 collapses because knowing God comes through Christ, not through re‑entering the Mosaic treaty, and the law’s telos is fulfilled in Him—not perpetuated as Sinai.

God's righteousness and righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:142, 160), so Hebrews 7:12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery or sinful to do charity, but rather the context is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would require a change of the law in regard it is administration. A priesthood led by God's Word made flesh does not involve departing from God's Word. While "olam" can refer to with either a temporary or eternal period of time, the easy way to resolve this is whether God's righteousness is temporary or eternal.

You’re missing the point of Heb 7:12, because the chapter explicitly says Christ’s new priesthood requires a change of law, and the NT defines that change as the end of the Sinai covenant—“former commandment set aside” (Heb 7:18), covenant “obsolete” (Heb 8:13), “added until the Seed came” (Gal 3:19), “no longer under the tutor” (Gal 3:25), believers have “died to the law” (Rom 7:4)—so appealing to Ps 119 or Deut 13 collapses, because God’s righteousness is eternal but the Mosaic treaty is not, and the prophets themselves say the Sinai covenant was broken (Jer 31:32), meaning obeying God does not mean re‑entering a covenant God Himself says is no longer binding.

In Romans 7:25, Paul said that he served the Law (nomos) or God with his mind in contrast with serving the law (nomos) of sin with his flesh, so he used it to refer to both. In Romans 5-8, Paul said that the Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted in obeying it, and that he served it with his mind in contrast with the law of sin, which was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which was again war against the law of his mind, which he served with his flesh, and which held him captive, and which the law of the Spirit has freed us from. In Romans 7:22, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:5 as referring the Law of God as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order bear fruit unto death. Likewise, it would be would absurd to Romans 7:6 as if Paul delighted in being held captive to sin, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive (Romans 7:23). Likewise a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful and not holy, righteous and good, so the law in Romans 7:5 can't be referring to the same law as Romans 7:7 or 7:12.

You’re missing Paul’s own distinctions, because in Romans 5–8 nomos refers to multiple realities—Law of God he delights in (Rom 7:22), the law of sin enslaving his flesh (Rom 7:23), the law of the Spirit freeing him (Rom 8:2), and the Mosaic covenant he says believers have died to (Rom 7:4) and are not under (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18), so your reading forces Paul to contradict himself by making the same “law” both the holy law he loves (Rom 7:12, 22) and the law that aroused sinful passions (Rom 7:5), when Paul explicitly separates them; Romans 8:3–4 shows the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit, not by re‑entering the Sinai treaty, which Scripture calls temporary (Gal 3:19), no longer binding (Gal 3:25), broken (Jer 31:32), set aside (Heb 7:18), and obsolete (Heb 8:13).

You have no justification for making that claim in order to ignore the context of how Paul used "nomos". Paul used "nomos" in over 10 different ways, so we always need to discern which category of law he is referring to every time he uses that word.

I agree that Paul did not redefine nomos to mean "law of sin", but rather it can refer to the Law of God, the law of sin, or some other category of law depending on the context of how he used it. Paul also referred to the law of sin simply as "sin". For example, in Romans 7:8, sin [the law of sin] seiszed the opportunity through the Law of God to produce all kinds of coveting and sin would lie dead apart from the law of sin. In 7:12-13, Paul said that the Law of God is good and that it was not that which is good that brought death to him, but sin [the

Brother, your argument collapses because while Paul uses nomos in multiple senses, he never uses unqualified nomos in Galatians to mean the law of sin—in Galatians it always means the Mosaic law, which is why the same section says it was “added until the Seed came” (Gal 3:19), that we are “no longer under the tutor” (Gal 3:25), and that being led by the Spirit means we are “not under the law” (Gal 5:18). Romans 7–8 does not redefine nomos in Galatians; it distinguishes the Law of God Paul delights in (Rom 7:22), the law of sin enslaving his flesh (Rom 7:23), and the Mosaic covenant believers have died to (Rom 7:4). Your reading forces Paul to say the same “law” is both the holy law he loves (Rom 7:12) and the law that aroused sinful passions (Rom 7:5), which Paul explicitly denies. Galatians 5:18 cannot mean “not under the law of sin,” because Paul already said the Spirit frees us from that law (Rom 8:2); Galatians is saying we are not under the Mosaic treaty, not that we are free from God’s eternal moral will.

 

[biblestudent78]

Correct. Proverbs is God's Wisdom which is true under the old and the new covenants

ScooterJackson:
In general, it is not a good idea to equate human musing on life with a divine, loving and forgiving God.

• Proverbs 6:26 (The cost of a loose life) – "You can buy an hour with a prostitute for a loaf of bread, but a married woman goes after your very life." This verse reduces human survival and intimacy to a harsh economic transaction, comparing the literal cheap price of a prostitute encounter against the catastrophic total social cost of marriage.

• Proverbs 21:9 and 25:24 (The nagging partner) – "Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife." Repeated identically twice in the book, this proverb endorses social isolation and emotional abandonment, suggesting that physical exposure on a dangerous outdoor roof is preferable to living with domestic conflict but offers not cure.

• Proverbs 23:13–14 (Corporal punishment) – "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish them with a rod, they will not die. Punish them with a rod and save their life from death." This verse explicitly commands strong physical punishment with an implement, making a dramatic leap from childhood misbehavior to saving a soul from physical or spiritual ruin. Beating a child into heaven appears to be a very unproductive path, yet to some, it is God's will.

• Proverbs 26:4–5 (Contradictory advice side-by-side) – "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." These two consecutive verses command the exact opposite action, offering a jarringly cynical or purely pragmatic view of debate where logic yields to manipulation depending on the moment.

• Proverbs 30:15–16 (Insatiable greed) – "The leech has two daughters. 'Give! Give!' they cry. There are three things that are never satisfied, four that never say, 'Enough!': the grave, the barren womb, land, which is never satisfied with water, and fire, which never says, 'Enough!' " This numerical riddle groups human grief (a barren womb) and natural destruction (fire and the grave) into a grim, blood-sucking metaphor of endless consumption by your children. Blood sucking children never makes it into New Testament metaphors
• Proverbs 8:22: "The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works..." This verse is heavily debated by theologians and historians because Lady Wisdom claims to be created or birthed before the universe, leading to historical disputes over how to interpret Christ’s nature relative to creation.
  Proverbs 22:6: "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." Debated as a promise versus a general probability, many struggle with this verse because faithful parents experience rebellious children, causing arguments over whether it is a binding divine guarantee or a wise general observation.
  Proverbs 21:9 and 27:15–16: Verses concerning a "quarrelsome" or "contentious" wife. Readers frequently debate whether these are localized cultural observations, descriptive warnings against toxic relationships, or overly broad generalizations.
  
  
  

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Yeah because all the Christians in modern times sure like to enjoy their sinful behavior.

So they claim repenting from their sin is like being under the law.

They have been deceived by the devil not understanding or knowing that when a person sins they are sowing to the flesh and are reaping corruption which is why the Lord in His mercy and grace put 1 John 1:9 in the Bible along with all those warnings about those walking after the flesh are no longer in right standing with the Lord because they are no longer abiding in Christ

1 John 3:8 - He that committeth sin is of the devil
1 John 3:7 - Little children, let no man deceive you: he that DOES righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
1 John 3:6 - Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

Of course the "christian sinners" will claim 1 John is not actually scripture from the Lord.

The term "repent"/repentance " is not defined as turning from sins. God repented frequently in the old testament. He is not a sinner. However the preachers who refuse to rightly define the issues of salvation are. The word typical means a change of mind or decision. Context is the key to understanding the usage.

1 John 1:9 is essential for saved believers to be restored to fellowship with the Lord.
The Epistle is written to brethren, brothers in Christ. When the believer sins, his only recourse is confession to God, just like Jeremiah 3:13 and the 32nd Psalm.

Faith/believing/trust in Jesus , in reference to His substitutionary blood atonement, burial and resurrection that paid their judgement for sins is the proper response.
Satan has taken the law and misapplied it to salvation. The law does not save. Obedience to the law cannot save. Jesus was saving rotten tax collectors and harlots while the teachers of the law were condemned. The latest rendition is published in the Quran and Mormon books of fiction. They push "repent of your sins to be saved because they are like every other religion that offers works based salvation.

The Bible says it's not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.
Titus 3:5