Let's unpack your sentence and examine it:
"All followers of God... regardless of whether they are a Jew or a Gentile" those terms are no longer relevant. They certainly were in biblical times though, but we need to use them in that context and not try to apply the biblical context today.
My point was that being a Jew or a Gentile is not revenant to whether followers of God should seek by faith to walk in His way. However, Paul did not say that being a Jew or a Gentile is no longer recant, just that it doesn't give someone a higher status when it comes to being in Christ.
"should seek by faith"... what does this even mean? Seek by faith? I seek by looking, or in this context, by striving.
Seeking is about having the goal of doing something while seeking by faith is about trusting in God that we have the correct goal, namely that we ought to walk in God's way.
"to walk in God's way"... and what, exactly, to you mean by this?
God's way is the way that God expresses aspects of His character, such as righteousness and justice (Genesis 18:19).
"in accordance with Christ's example"... Jesus walked on water, healed people by spitting on them, and drove demons out with a word of rebuke. He had no place to lay His head, never married nor had children, never held a job, etc. Just which parts do you think we should take as exemplars? Let's be perfectly clear: Jesus DID NOT call His followers to do what He did; He told them to tell others about Him.
Walking in God's way in accordance with Christ's example is about testifying about aspects of God's character as taught us how to do, such as by doing righteousness and justice, not about things like wearing robes and sandals. The goal of a disciple was to come under a rabbi in order to learn how to walk in God's way by memorizing their teachings and copying their example and we see this line of thought expressed in verses like 1 Peter 2:21-22, where we are told to follow Christ's example of refraining from sin, in 1 John 2:6, where those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, and 1 Corinthians 11:1, where Paul instructed us to be imitators of him as he is an imitator of Christ. It is contradictory for you to claim that Jesus did not call his followers to do what he did because following him means doing what he did. The Son is the exact image of God's character (Hebrews 1:3), so he expressed traits like righteousness and justified by walking in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so by leading people to follow his example in accordance with spreading the Gospel we are telling others about him.
Yes... this is a canard commonly employed by people who don't understand the exclusive nature of the Sinai covenant. That there was a "mixed multitude" is essentially irrelevant. The covenant was between God and Israel.
While the covenant was inclusively between God and Israel and Israel is inclusive of Gentiles should have faith in the God of Israel. In Jeremiah 31:31, the New Covenant was only made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel, so it is only through becoming joined to Israel through faith in Christ that Gentiles are able to partake of the New Covenant.
No, God has always been inclusive. Israel definitely has not, despite God's instruction on the matter. The whole avoidance of Samaritans was evidence of that.
The point is still that Gentiles become part of Israel through faith in the God of Israel regardless of the attitude that some Jews have had towards Gentiles and vice versa.
With respect, you seem confused about the distinction between Law and Gospel. The Gospel is not, "Follow the Law and God will accept you."
In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message.
Really? Where is that in Scripture?
The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that can't currently be followed. When the Israelites were exiled to Babylon the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to the Mosaic Law, which contained instructions in regard to temple practice that couldn't be followed because the temple had just been destroyed, so God nevertheless honored their obedience to the laws that they could obey.
And those "instructions" are not the Law given at Sinai or reiterated in Deuteronomy.
There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being God's way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Psalms 103:7, Psalms 119:1-3, and many others.
You connected teaching to following God's instructions with what the Pharisees were guilty of doing, but the problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees was never that they were teaching people to obey God's instructions.
I'll take a biblical definition and common understanding over the words of some commentators I've never heard of.
That definition is in accordance with the biblical definition.
That's both unnecessarily convoluted and inconsistent with biblical faith.
Someone's trustworthiness is shown by them acting in accordance with the truth that I have placed in them just as someone's faithfulness is shown by then acting in according with the faith that I have placed in them. This is pretty straightforward and is in accordance with the biblical definition.
No! That's salvation by works, a heretical corruption of the biblical gospel.
In Acts 3:25-26, Jesus was set in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness, so again being turned from our wickedness is the way to believe in the promise, which is not salvation by works. Salvation by works is the position that we need to have first done a certain amount of works in order to earn our salvation as the result.
