Jesus Came To Fulfill Not To Destroy

Does anyone disregard the commandments of the New Testament?

you believe it is okay to believe some of Christ's teaching and not all of them?

Have you whited out the verses I posted out of your bible or do you simply choose to ignore them?

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose."--Philippians 2:12-13

No, I do not believe it is the case that anyone was making that claim. The law of Christ is clearly laid out in the New Testament.



There is clearly a difference of interpretation. But I propose that the arguments that you have recently presented for your position do not hold water.

I see instances of hair-splitting. On one side you have appealed to the ethos of a Sunday Sabbath tradition held by the church, and on the very same stroke you have disregarded Christmas or Easter as "just another day" despite also being a church tradition. You claimed that following only NT commandments is a form of lawlessness that permits adultery and theft, despite the fact that the NT explicitly gives direction against those. You claimed that one must follow all of the commandments in the Bible despite the very detailed explanations by Paul about why that is not the case, and despite such a position requiring a segregation of OT laws that apply and those that don't.

The position you have seemed to present in the last few posts appears to be full of contradictions that one who did not read the NT might not realize. I asked questions specifically in the context of passages that explicitly contradict the interpretation that "all OT law applies".

In order for your position to be tenable, you must have a dividing line between types of OT law that are required and types that aren't (which you do indeed appear to have some scheme for this). That dividing line requires justification. Then, out of the remaining OT laws you have deemed to be essential and applicable to the phrases about "keeping Christ's commandments", there needs to be justification regarding why your specific interpretation for how to observe those commandments is 1) necessarily valid and 2) necessarily exclusively true. You attempted to establish this with an ethos argument based on tradition, but it falls flat because there was a contradiction in your argument which either requires further justification (i.e. why is the church's tradition right about Sunday mass but not about Christ mass?) or abandonment and the use of a different approach.

1) Which laws in the OT do you perceive to still apply (that don't also reappear in the NT)?
2) What leads you to the conclusion that your interpretation of how to honour those commandments is necessarily and exclusively true?
3) Are there any OT laws that you are advocating for that do not also appear in the New Testament?



It is through Christ that salvation is found, not the observation of OT law by itself.

What commandments of the New Testament? They're all the same. Oh Christ added one, "A new commandment I give you--love one another."

Please refer to my post 610--The Mosaic Law and the 10 Commandments are two different things--the difference is we have the Holy Spirit in us--working in us to 'will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose." Christ is the final sacrifice therefore the Mosaic Law and sacrifices are done away with-- however, we still need to OBEY the 10 commandments.

This doctrine of grace to the neglect of obedience has done much harm to the church---our churches are dead and look like the world. Once Saved Always Saved is Grace Alone's evil twin. Ravi Zacharias being a prime example of this.

OSAS = evil

Commandments exist in the New Testament. Give it a thorough read, you'll see many of them. "Turn the other cheek" is one of them. Many elements of the law of Christ appear as directions and suggestions through Paul's discussions such as esteeming things unclean or helping neighbours out. There are also key differences between OT and NT including how "neighbour" is defined and differences in the commandment for not bearing false witness.

One of the biggest mistakes to be made is to assume that the NT is just an abridged rehash of the OT. It is not. The OT should be understood through the lens of the NT, not the other way around. Through Christ we find truth.



I doubt that your concept of OSAS is the same as the actual concept held by OSAS proponents.

Your arguments don't hold water, Jocund and you pay little to no attention to what I actually wrote--how many times must I explain that the Law and the 10 Commandments are two different things? Btw, you say the New Testament has commands against adultery and theft-YES! The New Testament has all 10 of the Commandments throughout, just not in list form.

Furthermore, we are not arguing how Salvation is obtained-you are making assumptions that because we believe we need to obey the commandments that we are depending on that to save us. YOU ARE WRONG.

True Christians know it is by God's grace thru faith--it is by repentance and belief that we receive Salvation. However, we are still called to 'work out our salvation with fear and trembling.' God empowers us to do that, but we must exercise the mind, heart, and will he has given us. Again, Christ said "If you love me, keep my commandments." These are the 10 Commandments and any and all of His teaching.

And Christmas and Easter are TRADITIONS--I simply used those as an example of what Jewish high holy days also called sabbath days are. My point obviously was that they are not THE Sabbath Day.

Your arguments don't hold water

If the 10 Mosaic commandments are the only commandments from the OT that matter, and they also appear in the NT, why do we need to refer to the OT for moral direction?

What day is the Sabbath on?
How do we honour the Sabbath?
Why do you believe your interpretation of honouring the Sabbath is necessarily THE interpretation to follow?




Basically you said: "I know you are but what am I"

Interesting.

Again, your arguments do not hold water. You ask 'What day is the Sabbath on? What a nonsensical question. Even a theologian who thinks we no longer need to honor the Sabbath will say it is SATURDAY--the SEVENTH day of the week.
And why are you bringing up honoring the Sabbath--that is a whole other forum--look to my posts their if you want to understand my position.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing while ignoring what i've written--I won't respond further.

My conclusion is that your position is untenable. No further response is needed.

We find that in 1 Timothy 4:1-6, I will be a good minister of Jesus Christ to point out to the brethren that in the last days men will heed the voice of demons and will purport doctrines of demons...among which are the concepts that marriage should be forbidden and that we ought to abstain from meats that God has created to be received with thanksgiving...for they are sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

However, in Matthew 5:17-20, I am told that I will be counted as great in the kingdom, if I obey and teach the least of the commandments that were given in the OT...which includes the food laws of Leviticus 11.

These things would appear to contradict each other unless you make the distinction that the doctrine about abstaining from meats includes within it the concept that a man is not saved unless he obeys the food laws of the Old Testament.

Because I can obey and teach the food laws of the Old Testament without touting them as a requirement for salvation...I can teach the brethren that obeying the food laws is simply another way of saying to Jesus that you love Him more than anything...that even though you know that He does not require it of you for salvation, you are willing to give up those savoury meats as a way of saying to Him that you love Him more than those savoury meats (and I do love them; and yet have also given them up for the most part).

The doctrine of devils being that obeying the food laws are required for salvation.

While I would say that if anyone is seeking to be justified through law-keeping, good works, or personal merits, that Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, and Matthew 5:48 would require them to obey every law in the Old Testament perfectly from conception into eternity...including the food laws...

But that if you are trusting in Christ and what He did on the Cross to save you, you are not under the law (Romans 6:14) are dead to the law (Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19) and are delivered from the law (Romans 7:6) as concerning condemnation...

And therefore, it is not required of you that you obey the food laws.

While if you desire to obey them, there is also no condemnation for you if you obey them.

1Co 8:8, But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

It is saying that if you obey the food laws and eat not, you are not worse off for that you eat not.

And you are not better off if you disobey the food laws and eat what is forbidden by them.

This is referring to the doctrine that says that we must necessarily forsake the laws of the Old Testament in order to truly be under grace.

It should be clear that obeying the food laws of the Old Testament does not make you worse off...you do not end up not being under grace if you decide that you want to obey them.

As a matter of fact, it would seem, in looking at Matthew 5:17-20, that if a person does obey the food laws, they are better off...they will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

However, it would indeed be a doctrine of devils to purport that one must obey the food laws in order to be saved.

Again, if someone is born again through faith in Jesus, they are not under the law.

It is only those who seek to obtain salvation through law-keeping, works, or personal merits who are required to obey every law of the Old and New Testaments (Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48) perfectly from conception into eternity if they are going to enter in that way.

And no one has ever done that but ONE...our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

And He died on the Cross in order to provide for the divine exchange in penal substitution...where His perfect life and righteousness is applied to our account and our sinful behavour is applied to His, as He took the penalty for our sins on the Cross and His right to entrance into heaven is freely given to us.

Our gratitude at having received this ought to make for loving obedience on our part as we fall in love with Him for having given us such an extravagant gift so freely at such a mighty cost to His own life.

Of course it was not possible that death could hold Him down...

So, it was the pain of suffering that Jesus would look forward to as the Cross was set before Him as He would only temporarily suffer the punishment that, if it had been applied to us, would have been everlasting punishment; for that He is an infinite being and we are finite; and therefore He was able to take in a finite period of time the punishment that, if it had been meted out to us, would have lasted for eternity.

However, in Matthew 5:17-20, I am told that I will be counted as great in the kingdom, if I obey and teach the least of the commandments that were given in the OT...which includes the food laws of Leviticus 11.

I beleive in the Sabbath [...] Jesus said to keep the commandments and Jesus kept the Sabbath Holy,

The approach in interpretation here is that OT works of law are for the benefit of stratification in the Kingdom rather than as a qualifier for salvation. But this would then ask us to stone adulterers to death and burn witches based on OT law. It isn't murder at that point, it is lawful execution based on the ordinances. But the stratification approach can at least be seemingly consistent with scripture where other efforts to apply cherrypicked OT commandments by other users are not.

A different approach to this is to interpet "the commandments" in this case to be in reference to commandments issued under Christ, as the conditions of the NT covenant fulfil the law through Christ.

And I don't say this without precedence from the OT. For example, an eye for an eye is a rule in the OT, but it is acceptable in lieu of a real physical eye to make a payment that is equal to an eye in order to satisfy that legalistic requirement. The example of this is when you blind a slave, you are required to free the slave in exchange to cover the cost of his eye. We see many examples of fulfilment of the ordinances of the law through equivalency. This was and is a fundamental feature of how the law was set up in the OT. By Christ fulfilling the law, the specific verbiage of ordinances in the OT is unnecessary to meet so long as one fulfils the requirement of that substitute (namely the law of Christ). The ordinances of the law are blotted out.

With the second approach, that only the commandments set out in the NT need to be addressed, you can still come to the same conclusions about abstaining from meat, etc. they just aren't necessarily something that applies universally (based on the very specific provisions in the NT). You will find you can come to many of the same conclusions that your heart leads you to, it's just that the framework for the interpretation is different.

The differences in some of the interpretations seem to be focused mainly on which commandments were being talked about. If we are to follow all of the commandments of the OT we should be stoning adulterers and burning witches. Some are turned off by that natural conclusion of following all of the OT commandments (and arguably, rightly so).

There is an interesting angle you bring up, and that is the concept that because Jesus kept the Sabbath and followed OT law that it would follow that it is a requirement for every Christian to also follow the OT law. I don't agree with this conclusion because of Paul's later explanation that we are freed from the ordinances of the law through Christ. Even if Christ adhered to the law, it does not follow that the expectation is that we all follow the law.

That said, with the writings of the NT it makes it clear that everyone should make up their own mind on things like Holy days. If your conscience leads you to embrace Saturday and honour it in a particular way, that is important.

I do find it interesting that it seems like historically that is why we ended up with Saturday and Sunday as days of rest in the work week.

Yes, but our goal isn't notoriety among people.

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly." - Matthew 6:1-4 KJV

Was it "animal sacrifice" law that brought you to Christ?

NO, how absurd. No one sacrifices animals.

But LOADS of people work at the 10 commandments. Even though they don't understand what they say they use their imagination and PRETEND to keep the 10 commandments.

This is what the 10 commandments tell YOU;

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Once you figure out that you can't obey the 10 commandments that should bring you to Christ for His Help.

"By this we can be sure that we have come to know Him: if we keep His commandments. If anyone says, “I know Him,” but does not keep His commandments, he is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone keeps His word, the love of God has been truly perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him:…--1st John 2:4

Paul says in Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. In other words if there is no law there is no sin. Sin is not imputed or no blame can be accredited to any person when there is no law. Now, let’s see what Sin is according to the Bible in I John 3:4 it states, "whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." So if the law was nailed to the cross that would mean its okay to use the Lords name in vain, put other gods before HIM, make graven images and bow before them, pollute the Sabbath day, steal, commit murder, commit adultery and bear false witness. If all these things are okay to commit, then we might as well throw the Bible out the back door and do what ever feels good to us. Today you will find out what law was nailed to the cross. We will see that Paul was in fact a law keeper and how he preached out of the Law and the Prophets.

Now let's begin by taking a look at both of the laws and how they worked together. We will see there were two laws given to Moses, they were the commandments and the sacrificial law. Watch how they worked together.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: (Leviticus 4:1-2) The law in the scriptures above is the commandments.

Notice something else very important in these two scriptures. It states, "if a soul shall sin through ignorance." Notice that the scripture did not says on purpose. Why? There is no sacrifice for a sin that is committed willfully. Let's find out what was to be done if a person committed a sin against the Lord unintentionally. Let's skip down to the 27th verse and take a look at the second law (which is the sacrificial law).

And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. (Leviticus 4:27-30)

When the common people sinned through ignorance and it came to their knowledge, what did they have to do? They brought an offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for their sin which they had committed, then the priest would offer the animal to the Lord. Think about this for a moment. If an animal was killed for a person that committed sin, what will happen to us today if we a trespass against the Lord?

Let's go into Paul's writings and take another look at both of these laws. We will go into the Book of Galatians chapter 3. This is one of the chapters that the majority of Christian preachers use to do away with the Lord's commandments. Now, let's read carefully!

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Galatians 3:19)

Take heed to what Paul's says above, "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions." What is transgression? Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4) Transgression is braking of the commandments. What law was added because of the braking of the law? The sacrificial law! Paul is simply asking these Gentiles, "why perform the sacrificial law? It was added because of sin until the seed should come.