RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD 2 Timothy 2:15

[Soyeong]

just because God and His character are eternal, does not mean that His laws are eternal. That is not even logical. And you have nothing to prove or even suggest such a thing in the scriptures. In Genisus 17, God says the “covenant” is “EVERLASTING”. This is what
Some sources say about the word “everlasting” or forever: “ The word “everlasting” in languages like the Hebrew and Greek” does not always mean forever or endless duration in the Bible. It can also refer to a long, indefinite period, or an “age” or lasting era.”

If God's laws were arbitrarily given, then you would be correct, but God's law were graciously given to in order to teach us how know Him by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, so there there is a direct connection between the eternality or temporality of God's character traits and that of His instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits. If God's instructions for how to be a doer of His righteousness were temporary, then God's righteousness would also be temporary, but the fact that God's righteousness is clearly eternal rather than temporary means that the same is true of God's righteous laws. For example, being doer of charity has always been in accordance with God's righteousness, but if that were to ever change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal.

The easy way to discern whether God's covenants are eternal or temporary is whether they teach us things about God's character that are eternal or temporary. Are the promises that God has made in His covenants eternal or temporary? In Galatians 3:16-19, there is a principle that new covenants do not nullify the promises as covenants that have already been ratified, so God's covenants are eternally and cumulatively valid. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete, but does not make a plow obsolete so if the New Covenant involves doing something completely different from the Mosaic Covenant that were not cumulatively with it, then it could not make it obsolete. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be made obsolete by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it. So the New Covenant still involves following following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is not like the Mosaic Covenant insofar as it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).

The fault that God found with the Mosaic Covenant was not with His law, but with the people for not continuing in their covenant (Hebrews 8:7-9), so the solution to the problem was not for God to do away with His eternal character traits and eternal instructions for how to be a doer of them, but to do away with what was hindering us from following them. 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 Mosaic Law (Romans 8:3-4) and God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or in order for us to be free to continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33).

But Paul tells Christian’s in the New Testament that circumcision is “NOTHING!” Galatians 5:6

While Paul said that circumcision has no value, he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we keep the Mosaic Law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that the value of circumcision is entirely derived from our obedience to the Mosaic, which is faith working through love. It important to recognize that the Bible can speak against doing something for an incorrect reason without speaking against doing it for the reasons for which God commanded it. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason, then according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

In Matthew 5, Jesus is not merely, “adding on to His laws”. He is CHANGJNG THEM.

In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he consistently preceded a quote form what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different form of communication is important. Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to the law, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. The Torah does not permit divorce for any cause. An eye for an eye is still a good guideline for judges to help ensure fair sentencing that does not escalate out of proportion to the offense, but it was not intended to be used in person situation to justify taking vengeance into our own hands. In person situations we are instructed not to repay in kind (Proverbs 20:22, 24:29).

You did not represent Psalm 119:160 accurately.

The Hebrew word "mishpatim" refers to the category of law that is in regard to righteousness and justice, so "righteous laws" is a correct translation.

To know God is to know truth. An arrow flies true when it hits its mark, our mark is to walk in God's way, and God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142) because it was given to teach us how to walk in His way (1 Kings 2:1-3) while sin is missing the mark, sin is what is contrary to God's character traits, and sin is the transgression of the Mosaic Law (1 John 3:4). The Spirit has the role of leading us in truth (John 16:13) and of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27) because God's character traits are the fruits of the Spirit. 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 Mosaic Law, so he is God's way, the truth, and the life, and the way to know the Father (John 14:6-11).

Again, you would be correct if God's laws were arbitrary, but there is a direct connection between God's righteousness and His instructions for how to be a doer of His righteousness. The laws that God has given identify who He is.

The fact that the mixed multitude is always mentioned separately

The mixed multitude did not take long to become included as part of Israel (Joshua 8:33).

I do not want to be unkind, but to tell you the truth, there is so much error in the rest of your post, I feel it would take me days and a 20 page thesis to refute or explain it all! I may come back to it later when I am more “rested”, but now, this post is long enough.

I no problem with people thinking that I am in error, though that is something that needs to be demonstrated. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the rest of my post when you have time.

 

[Soyeong]

I agree with your dividing or interpretation of Paul, but I would clarify that he does not want people
to think they are saved by obeying innumerable moral dictates but rather via faith in Christ that is credited as righteousness (Romans 3:21-5:1) and allows His Holy Spirit to love through them (Rom. 5:5, Gal. 5:22-23) as they grow toward moral maturity (Eph. 4:11-24).

God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to trust in God is by obediently trusting in His instructions and it is contradictory to think that we are saved by faith in God but not in His instructions. In other words, it is contradictory to think that we are saved by faith in God's Word made flesh but not by faith in God's Word. We can do works that embody what we believe to be true about God', such as with James 2:18 saying that he would show his faith by his works, so the significance of our works is not that they are part of something that we are required to have done first in order to earn our salvation as the result, but that they are the way to embody of our faith. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith, and in Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so doing those works has absolutely nothing to do with trying to earn our salvation as the result, but rather God graciously teaching us to be a doer of those works is part of His gift of salvation.

While the only way for someone to attain a character trait is through faith, what it means for someone to attain a character trait is for them to become a doer of that trait. For example, the only way for someone to become courageous is by faith apart from being required to have first done enough courageous works in order to earn it as the result, but it would be contradictory for someone to become courageous apart from becoming a doer of courageous works, and the same is true for righteousness and every other character trait. Abraham was a doer of righteous works (Genesis 18:19). This is why the same faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works does not abolish our need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31). Everyone who has faith will be declared righteous and everyone who has faith is a doer of God's law, which is how Paul can deny in Romans 4:1-5 that we can earn our righteousness and result of our works while also affirming in Romans 2:13 that only the doers of the law will be declared righteous. In other words, we become someone who has faith, someone who will be declared righteous, and someone who is a doer of the law all at the same time and anyone who is not one of those is also not the others, but we do not earn our righteousness as the result of our works.

The Mosaic Law included two categories of commands:

1. Moral laws, such as the first nine of the Ten Commandments, that were repromulgated in the NT and subsumed under Christ's command to love everyone (Matt. 5:40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:8, Gal. 5:14), and

2. Religious laws, including the Sabbath regulations, that formed the sacrificial system, which foreshadowed the atonement of Christ and were ended when he died (Col. 2:13-23, Heb. 10:1).

Jeremiah 31:33 refers to the first category.
Galatians 2:11-14 indicates that Galatians 3:10-12 referred to the second category primarily,
although both types are included when speaking of being saved by faith (Gal. 3:21-24).

The Bible state anything about distinguishing between moral and. and non-moral laws, but rather laws like the ones to love our neighbor as ourselves are listed right next to ones like those against wearing clothing made from mixing wool and linen (Leviticus 19:18-19). The existence of the category of moral law would imply that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that aren't in that category, but there are no examples in the Bible where disobedience to any of God's laws is stated to be moral and I see no justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to embody God's likeness through being a doer of His character traits, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. 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 moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and is therefore claiming to have greater moral knowledge than God. By arbitrarily excluding some laws as being part of the moral law and taking the position that you should only follow what you consider to be the moral law, you are essentially disagreeing with God about what ought to be done and saying that you should lean on your own understanding of right and wrong by doing what is right in your own eyes rather than trust in God with all of your heart to correctly divide between right and wrong through His law (Proverbs 3:1-7).

Everything in the Mosaic Law is either in regard to how to love God or our neighbor, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40 that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them, so the the Mosaic Law is the Law of Love, which Jesus fulfilled by teaching us how to correctly obey it. The position that we should obey the greatest two commandment is also the position that we should obey all of the commandments that hang on them.

 

[Soyeong]

Christians need to be careful about saying God changes laws because the Bible teaches that God is immutable, never changing. i don't know the whole story on this. all i'm saying is that i don't think God changes His mind & then changes a law. i never studied into this subject. but this is the 1st time i heard someone say that God changes laws. if you find out the truth on this, please let me know.

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so none of them will ever change. If the way to be a doer of God's righteousness could change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, but it is also eternal (Psalms 119:142).

There is cognitive dissonance in someone taking the position that we should only follow what Jesus and the Apostles said but not wha they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so that doesn't leave room to think that it has changed to something else that we should live by instead.

 

[GWH]

God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to trust in God is by obediently trusting in His instructions and it is contradictory to think that we are saved by faith in God but not in His instructions. In other words, it is contradictory to think that we are saved by faith in God's Word made flesh but not by faith in God's Word. We can do works that embody what we believe to be true about God', such as with James 2:18 saying that he would show his faith by his works, so the significance of our works is not that they are part of something that we are required to have done first in order to earn our salvation as the result, but that they are the way to embody of our faith. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith, and in Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so doing those works has absolutely nothing to do with trying to earn our salvation as the result, but rather God graciously teaching us to be a doer of those works is part of His gift of salvation.

------------

Everything in the Mosaic Law is either in regard to how to love God or our neighbor, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40 that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them, so the the Mosaic Law is the Law of Love, which Jesus fulfilled by teaching us how to correctly obey it. The position that we should obey the greatest two commandment is also the position that we should obey all of the commandments that hang on them.

Re "it is contradictory to think that we are saved by faith in God but not in His instructions": No, it contradicts God's instructions
regarding salvation to contradict His instruction that sinners are saved by faith and not by obeying His instructions other than this one. This is explained in Part I of Lesson 2 of our website, but here is an excerpt:

A crisis that threatened a Philippian jailer with death prompted him to ask Paul and Silas the most important question in life: “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30) This question is most important, because—as sinful and mortal souls—we need saving from corruption, both moral and physical. We need saving from physical death if we value or enjoy life, and we need saving from immorality or evil-doing if it results in unhappy existence, especially after this lifetime.

The reply of Paul and Silas was this: “Believe in the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 16:31) This is God's requirement for salvation (GRFS) in a nutshell. Jesus Himself expressed GRFS even more succinctly using three, four and five letter words: “Ask… seek… knock…” (Matt. 7:7). This indicates that God graces every sinful soul with the ability or opportunity to seek salvation (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11), which might be called “seeking grace” (Tit. 2:11). As Hebrews 11:6 states: “he [God] rewards those who earnestly seek him” (cf. Isa. 45:19). Seeking God is the beginning of saving faith, and not seeking God or rejecting His salvation in Christ is the essence of evil atheism or faith in I-dolatry (Rom. 3:11, 1:18-23). All humans sin, but every sinner has the opportunity to repent/have saving faith (per Rom. 1:20, 2:7, 3:21-22, 4:16 & 5:8-19).

GRFS may be denoted by the use of the Greek word kerygma, meaning proclamation or preaching, referring to the good news (Gospel) concerning salvation to heaven and from a just hell (the DOD, cf. Rom. 1:16, Gal. 1:6-12, Col. 1:21-23). This Gospel was preached by Peter (in Acts 2:22-24) and summarized by Paul (in 1Cor. 15:1-8). The salient points include: Jesus was a man, accredited by God (to be Messiah), who died on a cross, but who was raised or resurrected from the dead. Messiah is the Way to heaven.

Teachings that are secondary or subsequent to learning GRFS may be indicated by another Greek word, didache, which means teaching. The didache may be very important and requisite for becoming spiritually mature, but it is not most important or necessary to know/believe in order to be saved. The distinction between kerygma/saving faith and didache/working faith was made by Jesus when He commissioned His original twelve disciples minus Judas (MT 28:19-20). This “Great Commission” speaks of both types of information. The kerygma is indicated by verse 19, in which Jesus says, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations”.

A Christian disciple is a learner or one who believes the good news about God’s offer of eternal life to all who accept Jesus as Christ, the Lord incarnate. The didache is implicit in verse 20, in which Jesus continues by saying “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” This speaks of the information a disciple needs to know and believe after conversion in order to grow in Christ-likeness regarding how to live the law of love. It is the “all truth” that is taught by the Spirit referred to in John 16:13. Again, it is very important but not necessary for salvation. Witness the thief on the cross in Luke 23:39-43, who had no opportunity to learn the didache after his conversion; although, like Paul (according to Acts 22:3) and most adults, some didachaic truth is learned prior to knowing the kerygma.

The distinction between kerygma and didache can be seen also in 2 Timothy 3:15-17. The scriptures “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” refers to the Gospel or kerygma. The scriptural teaching that is useful for “training in righteousness, so that the man [or woman per Gal. 3:28] of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” refers to the didache. The apostle Paul also employs the difference between kerygma and didache in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. The “foundation… which is Jesus Christ” is the kerygmatic teaching regarding salvation. Paul alludes to the didache when he says that one should be careful how he/she builds upon this foundation.

The distinction between kerygma and didache involves a difference in content and purpose. The kerygma proclaims GRFS, which calls for repentance and acceptance of Jesus as Lord, which is an all or nothing decision that occurs at one moment in time. The didache teaches God’s will regarding how saints or those who have been saved should live in order to be a good witness for Christ, which involves learning more of God’s Word throughout one’s lifetime. A passage teaching this truth is Colossians 2:6-7: “Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord [kerygma], continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught [didache].”

There is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace or motivates good works while walking/living (Eph. 2:8-10, 2Cor. 5:7), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime (Rom. 1:17). IOW, the ability to do good works as well as have saving faith are both due to God’s grace.

 

[Dino246]

If God's laws were arbitrarily given, then you would be correct, but God's law were graciously given to in order to teach us how know Him by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, so there there is a direct connection between the eternality or temporality of God's character traits and that of His instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits.

That’s circular reasoning and objectively wrong.

God gave the law to limit sin and to prepare the people for the coming Messiah.

Galatians 3:19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

As for embodying God's character traits, please explain how drinking dirty water under a curse as a test for faithfulness (Numbers 5:11-31) does so.

 

[Beckworth]

If God's laws were arbitrarily given, then you would be correct, but God's law were graciously given to in order to teach us how know Him by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, so there there is a direct connection between the eternality or temporality of God's character traits and that of His instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits. If God's instructions for how to be a doer of His righteousness were temporary, then God's righteousness would also be temporary, but the fact that God's righteousness is clearly eternal rather than temporary means that the same is true of God's righteous laws. For example, being doer of charity has always been in accordance with God's righteousness, but if that were to ever change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal.

The easy way to discern whether God's covenants are eternal or temporary is whether they teach us things about God's character that are eternal or temporary. Are the promises that God has made in His covenants eternal or temporary? In Galatians 3:16-19, there is a principle that new covenants do not nullify the promises as covenants that have already been ratified, so God's covenants are eternally and cumulatively valid. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete, but does not make a plow obsolete so if the New Covenant involves doing something completely different from the Mosaic Covenant that were not cumulatively with it, then it could not make it obsolete. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be made obsolete by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it. So the New Covenant still involves following following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is not like the Mosaic Covenant insofar as it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).

The fault that God found with the Mosaic Covenant was not with His law, but with the people for not continuing in their covenant (Hebrews 8:7-9), so the solution to the problem was not for God to do away with His eternal character traits and eternal instructions for how to be a doer of them, but to do away with what was hindering us from following them. 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 Mosaic Law (Romans 8:3-4) and God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or in order for us to be free to continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33).


While Paul said that circumcision has no value, he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we keep the Mosaic Law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that the value of circumcision is entirely derived from our obedience to the Mosaic, which is faith working through love. It important to recognize that the Bible can speak against doing something for an incorrect reason without speaking against doing it for the reasons for which God commanded it. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason, then according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand







As I said before, you have not provided. ANY SCRIPTURE that teaches God’s eternal nature is DEPENDANT on His laws being eternal. Or vise versa. Where is scripture that says that? ALL you have done is use your own HUMAN REASONING as a basis for this argument. You must provide scripture for your ideas.

Here is one of your statements: QUOTE: “God’s law was given in order to teach us how to know God by embodying His likeness through being a doer of his character traits…”. Ok. Prove this by scripture. Where does God say that “ God’s law was given in order to teach us how to know God?” I can read Galatians 3:24 where the spirit says the old law was a TUTOR to bring us to Christ BUT now that Christ has come WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR. That verse tells me the “PURPOSE” of the old law, but I don’t read what you say about why the law was given anywhere in scripture. Did you just make that up? Scripture please.

QUOTE: “…by embodying His likeness by being a doer of His character traits.” Ok. Where is the scripture that says this? You gave your idea for the “PURPOSE. of thE old law and in thIS statement you are saying this is HOW we do it. SCRIPTURE where this is found? Where does God the Holy Spirit say this?

You are making arguments based on nothing but your own ideas and human reasoning. You must first PROVE that God’s laws are eternal because God’s nature is eternal. That is done by using scripture in God’s word that says so. If you can’t prove that , then whatever else you say is meaningless because it is not based on truth. Let us not hear what YOU THINK, but WHAT DOES THE BIBLE teach.

I do not know what you think Galatians 3:15-19 is teaching but it is NOT talking about New covenants nullifying the promises of old covenants. Just the opposite. Paul says in verse 17, “ the law—which law? The one given 430 years AFTER the promise to Abraham ( see verse 16) —that is the Old Jewish law given in the books of the law ( Ex. Lev. Num. Deut.), THAT LAW cannot nullify the promises made to Abraham concerning Christ and His covenant. So what He is actually saying is that the Old law cannot nullify the New law of Christ. Verse 19 plainly says that the old law was TEMPORARY—only lasting UNTIL CHRIST CAME. VERSE 24, clearly says we are no longer under the old law. I can discuss SCRIPTURE, but I will not waste time discussing your ideas that have no scripture.

I don’t know how you cannot understand the word “Obsolete.” God says the “first” covenant , the Old Testament is “OBSOLETE”. Hebrews 8:13. Google says “obsolete” means “something that is NO LONGER IN USE, useful, or out uf date, often because IT HAS BEEN REPLACED by something “NEW” or better.” Interesting because Hebrews 7:22 says that Jesus has brought us a BETTER COVENANT. Hebrews 10:9 says that God took away the “FIRST” covenant—that Old law, so that He could establish the SECOND” covenant—the New Testament law of Christ. The Bible says the old law is obsolete but you refuse to believe it saying that. “…it COULD NOT MAKE IT OBSOLETE.” I see you are very fond of making up your own definitions of things and then expecting us to accept and go along with them. Uh, no.

Roman’s 3:1-2 He is merely saying that the Jews had an advantage because to them were committed the oracles of God. But he goes on to say in that very same chapter that “ by the deeds of the law, NO one will be justified ( saved) in His sight.” (V. 20) and in V. 21- “But now, the righteousness of God APART FROM THE LAW is revealed. . Bam! That verse destroys your idea that God’s righteousness is dependent on and tied to the old laws righteousness. God says NO! That is not so.

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IS APART FROM THE LAW! Romans 3:21.
You either believe the Bible or you don’t. If you are not willing to accept what it says then we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[Beckworth]

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so none of them will ever change. If the way to be a doer of God's righteousness could change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, but it is also eternal (Psalms 119:142).

There is cognitive dissonance in someone taking the position that we should only follow what Jesus and the Apostles said but not wha they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so that doesn't leave room to think that it has changed to something else that we should live by instead.

Again the Bible proves you wrong. Hebrews 7:12. “ For the priesthood being CHANGED, of necessity THERE IS ALSO A CHANGE OF THE LAW.”

If the Bible is not in harmony with what I am teaching, who do you think needs to change?

 

[Beckworth]

Let me introduce another proof and argument from the Word of God about the two covenants—the Old Testament law of Moses and the New Testament law of Christ.

This time from Romans 7. I admit that Romans is not an easy book to understand and I don’t fully understand EVERY thing in the book; but some things are easy to understand what he says.

In the very first verse, he tells us the subject—the law. Specifically the Old Testament law of Moses. He then uses an ILLUSTRATION ABOUT MARRIAGE to illustrate what he is saying about the law. The marriage illustration is another subject but remember he is using that to make a point about the law.

They knew and understood that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives, just like the marriage law of a husband has dominion over a woman as long as her husband lives; BUT, if her husband dies, she is RELEASED from that marriage law. So, if while her husband is alive, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress. V. 3. But if her husband dies, she is FREE from that law so she is no adulteress even though she is married to another man. Remember, Paul is making a point here—not about marriage—but about the old law.

Verse 4- “Therefore, ( in like manner), YOU have also become DEAD to the (old) law through the body of Christ ( remember Col. 2:12) so that you can be married to another ( Christ) to Him who was raised from the dead. Do you see the significance of that argument? You cannot be “married” to the Old Testament law and married to Christ at the same time. That is spiritual “adultery”! That means you cannot serve or keep both at the same time. You must be “dead” to the old law so that you can legally be married to Christ. This is figurative language used to portray a spiritual”truth.” The Spirit says we are “DEAD” to the old law and in verse 6 He says we have been “DELIVERED” from the old law, HAVING DIED TO WHAT WE WERE HELD BY, so that we can serve in the “Newness” of the spirit ( Christ ) and NOT IN THE OLDNESS OF THE LETTER.”

We cannot be married to Christ unless we are DEAD to the old law. As Christ said in another place, “you cannot serve two masters”, so we cannot serve and keep 2 laws at the same time. We must be “DEAD” to the one, so that we are FREE to be married to the other.

 

[studier]

I’ll let the Holy Spirit do the talking for me.

HEBREWS 7:12
“For the priesthood being changed, of necessity, THERE IS ALSO A CHANGE OF THE LAW.”

This is the argument the Spirit is making: Under the OLD LAW of Israel, a man could NOT be a priest unless he was from the tribe of Levi. But Jesus IS a High priest FOREVER, according to Hebrews 6:20. So, how can Jesus who is NOT from the tribe of Levi, be a High Priest? Simple, the law was changed. The Old Testament is no longer governing us. We are under the law of Christ in the NEW Testament. Under the NEW law, Jesus who is from the tribe of Judah can be and IS our High Priest.

I'll use this to step in. What is the Law of Christ?

 

[Beckworth]

I'll use this to step in. What is the Law of Christ?

This may be oversimplifying it but just as when we talk about the old Jewish law of the Old Testament, we are talking about ALL of God’s laws for the Jews. That term covers all of their laws, although sometimes a passage may be only talking about one aspect of their law like the 10 commandments or their animal sacrifices. We understand that title to mean any and all of their laws. God also calls all of His laws to them a “covenant” or agreement.

The same applies to the law of Christ. We have the “mind” of Christ in the New Testament. 2 Cor. 2:16. It contains all of His laws and commandments. We may refer to the law of Christ specifically when we talk about different subjects like salvation, marriage, the church, spiritual growth, etc but it is all the law of Christ. God also calls it the law of faith Romans 3:27.

 

[studier]

This may be oversimplifying it but just as when we talk about the old Jewish law of the Old Testament, we are talking about ALL of God’s laws for the Jews. That term covers all of their laws, although sometimes a passage may be only talking about one aspect of their law like the 10 commandments or their animal sacrifices. We understand that title to mean any and all of their laws. God also calls all of His laws to them a “covenant” or agreement.

The same applies to the law of Christ. We have the “mind” of Christ in the New Testament. 2 Cor. 2:16. It contains all of His laws and commandments. We may refer to the law of Christ specifically when we talk about different subjects like salvation, marriage, the church, spiritual growth, etc but it is all the law of Christ. God also calls it the law of faith Romans 3:27.

Do you think it excludes all OC Law?

 

[Beckworth]

Do you think it excludes all OC Law?

By OC do you mean “Old covenant”? If so, then yes, I believe what ever is contained in that old law is excluded from the law of Christ. However there are many “moral” principles that Christ has included in his law that were also in the law of Moses. Many people strongly object to doing away with the 10 commandments, but no need to because all but 2 of the 10 are included in the Law of Christ. Do not, kill, steal, covet, swear, commit adultery, lie, are all repeated in the law of Christ in the New Testament in different places, along with honor your father and mother, and the first commandment , love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and strength. Idolatry is forbidden in several places in the New Testament just as it was in the old. We must trust and believe 2 Timothy 3:16 when God says that He has given us everything we need “ that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

I keep the laws of Christ. I do not keep the 10 commandments just because they were given by God to the Jews and were kept by many Jews and gentiles alike for 3000 years. God has promised that the law of faith “equips” me with everything I need. I trust what He says.

 

[homwardbound]

If God's laws were arbitrarily given, then you would be correct, but God's law were graciously given to in order to teach us how know Him by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, so there there is a direct connection between the eternality or temporality of God's character traits and that of His instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits. If God's instructions for how to be a doer of His righteousness were temporary, then God's righteousness would also be temporary, but the fact that God's righteousness is clearly eternal rather than temporary means that the same is true of God's righteous laws. For example, being doer of charity has always been in accordance with God's righteousness, but if that were to ever change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal.

The easy way to discern whether God's covenants are eternal or temporary is whether they teach us things about God's character that are eternal or temporary. Are the promises that God has made in His covenants eternal or temporary? In Galatians 3:16-19, there is a principle that new covenants do not nullify the promises as covenants that have already been ratified, so God's covenants are eternally and cumulatively valid. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete, but does not make a plow obsolete so if the New Covenant involves doing something completely different from the Mosaic Covenant that were not cumulatively with it, then it could not make it obsolete. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be made obsolete by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it. So the New Covenant still involves following following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is not like the Mosaic Covenant insofar as it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).

The fault that God found with the Mosaic Covenant was not with His law, but with the people for not continuing in their covenant (Hebrews 8:7-9), so the solution to the problem was not for God to do away with His eternal character traits and eternal instructions for how to be a doer of them, but to do away with what was hindering us from following them. 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 Mosaic Law (Romans 8:3-4) and God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or in order for us to be free to continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33).


While Paul said that circumcision has no value, he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we keep the Mosaic Law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that the value of circumcision is entirely derived from our obedience to the Mosaic, which is faith working through love. It important to recognize that the Bible can speak against doing something for an incorrect reason without speaking against doing it for the reasons for which God commanded it. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason, then according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.


In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he consistently preceded a quote form what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different form of communication is important. Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to the law, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. The Torah does not permit divorce for any cause. An eye for an eye is still a good guideline for judges to help ensure fair sentencing that does not escalate out of proportion to the offense, but it was not intended to be used in person situation to justify taking vengeance into our own hands. In person situations we are instructed not to repay in kind (Proverbs 20:22, 24:29).



The Hebrew word "mishpatim" refers to the category of law that is in regard to righteousness and justice, so "righteous laws" is a correct translation.

To know God is to know truth. An arrow flies true when it hits its mark, our mark is to walk in God's way, and God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142) because it was given to teach us how to walk in His way (1 Kings 2:1-3) while sin is missing the mark, sin is what is contrary to God's character traits, and sin is the transgression of the Mosaic Law (1 John 3:4). The Spirit has the role of leading us in truth (John 16:13) and of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27) because God's character traits are the fruits of the Spirit. 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 Mosaic Law, so he is God's way, the truth, and the life, and the way to know the Father (John 14:6-11).

Again, you would be correct if God's laws were arbitrary, but there is a direct connection between God's righteousness and His instructions for how to be a doer of His righteousness. The laws that God has given identify who He is.



The mixed multitude did not take long to become included as part of Israel (Joshua 8:33).


I no problem with people thinking that I am in error, though that is something that needs to be demonstrated. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the rest of my post when you have time.

The fulfillment of all Law is Love, God's love, best described in 1 Cor 13:4-7
Asl for, God's imputation of this true Love and be new from God for you too
Nothing else wins or won for us but Son's done work to us all,
The first Four commands are Love God Father with all your heart, then one will do in love the last 6 in love and mercy from God given them to do it without thought over it, Taking all thought captive to the obedience of Son Jesus the Christ
Thanking Father and Son as Won (One) for me and all the world 1 John 2:1-27

 

[Beckworth]

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so none of them will ever change. If the way to be a doer of God's righteousness could change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, but it is also eternal (Psalms 119:142).

There is cognitive dissonance in someone taking the position that we should only follow what Jesus and the Apostles said but not wha they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so that doesn't leave room to think that it has changed to something else that we should live by instead.

Well, of course Jesus quoted from the old law of Moses. It was the only law of God in existence at that time. What else was He going to quote from? There was no “New testament at that time. Jesus had not yet died on the cross( Col. 2:14). His “New” covenant was not yet in effect; and the “New” covenant was not yet written down. So what choice did He have? Besides, that old law was still in effect at that time. It had not yet been “taken away.” Col 2:14.
Just because Jesus quoted from the law that was in existence at that time is not unusual, nor is it proof that the old law is still in effect now. That is no proof of anything. ALL evidence is to the contrary. You just keep saying the same thing regardless of the evidence from scripture that is presented.

Tell us, do you not believe in the validity of the New Testament? Do you not believe the New Testament is inspired by God? Do you BELIEVE the scriptures that have been presented from the New Testament showing that the old Jewish law has been done away? Are you an unbeliever? You have never offered a comment on any scripture that shows that the old law is obsolete. We’d like to hear your explanation of Galatians 2:16, 5:4, or Hebrews 7:12, 19, 8:7, 13, 9:16-17, 10:9 and Romans 7:1-6. How do you explain these scriptures from God’s word? Do you believe the New Testament is inspired by God?

 

[Soyeong]

As I said before, you have not provided. ANY SCRIPTURE that teaches God’s eternal nature is DEPENDANT on His laws being eternal.

Something that is eternal does not change by definition, so for God to have eternals character trait means that the way to be a doer of them does not change. That's part of the definition, not based on my own reasoning.

“God’s law was given in order to teach us how to know God by embodying His likeness through being a doer of his character traits…”. Ok. Prove this by scripture.

I did. God's way is the way to know Him and Jesus by embodying His likeness by being a doer of His character traits. For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Jeremiah 9:3 and 9:6, they did not know God and refused to know Him because in 9:13, they had forsaken God's law, while in 9:24, those who know God know that He delights in being a doer of steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in all of the earth, so the way to know God is by delighting in being a doer of God's character traits.

This is exactly the same as the way to know the Son, who 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 Mosaic Law. In 1 John 2:4, those who say that they know Jesus but don't obey his commands are liars, in 1 John 3:4-6, those who continue to be doer of sin in transgression of the Torah have neither seen nor known him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would teach those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them. So the goal of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to know God and Jesus by walking in His way, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3).

I can read Galatians 3:24 where the spirit says the old law was a TUTOR to bring us to Christ.

If someone disregarded everything that their tutor taught them after the purpose of a tutor was fulfilled, then they would be missing the whole purpose of a tutor. The Mosaic Law leads us to Christ because it was given in order to teach us how to know him, but it does not lead us to Christ so that we can then reject everything that he taught and go back to being doers of what the Mosaic Law reveals to be wickedness.

QUOTE: “…by embodying His likeness by being a doer of His character traits.” Ok. Where is the scripture that says this? You gave your idea for the “PURPOSE. of thE old law and in thIS statement you are saying this is HOW we do it. SCRIPTURE where this is found? Where does God the Holy Spirit say this?

The Bible often also often uses the same terms to describe the character of God as it does to describe the character of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier of the Mosaic Law (Matthew 23:23), and it could not accurately be described as such if it were not God's instructions for how to be doers of those traits. 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 Mosaic Law. Our goal as followers of Christ should be to be in his likeness through being a doer of His character traits in accordance with the example that he set for us to follow..

You are making arguments based on nothing but your own ideas and human reasoning.

I quoted Scripture many times in order to support my position, so I'm not sure why you are acting as if I haven't been doing that. How does it even make sense to you to think that God's righteousness can be eternal while the way to be a doer of His righteousness is temporary? The Bible connects God's eternal righteousness with His eternal righteous laws (Psalms 119:142, 160). If God were to make changes to His law so that it was now contrary to His righteousness sin to be a doer of charity and it was now in accordance with His righteous to take advantage of the poor, the widow, and the orphan, so how could it still be accurate to say that His righteousness is eternal?

Galatians 3:15-19

In Galatians 3:16-19, it uses the Mosaic Covenant as an example to show that it does not nullify the the promises of pervious covenants that has already been ratified, but that is just as true for any covenant that God makes. The New Covenant also does not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so God's promises are cumulatively valid. If God's promises were temporary, then God would be a liar. Christ did not come with the message to stop repenting because that the law has ended now that he has come and we are now free to be doers of what it revealed to be wickedness, but just the opposite, he came with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was in accordance with him being sent as the promised see to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26).

I don’t know how you cannot understand the word “Obsolete.”.

Again, one thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer causes a typewriter be something that is no longer in use because it has cumulative functionality, but it does not cause a plow to be no longer in use because it does not have cumulative functionality. If the Mosaic Covenant had a function that the New Covenant doesn't have, then the New Covenant would not cause the Mosaic Covenant to no longer be in use. A computer is better than a typewriter and a computer replaces a typewriter because it has cumulative functionality, but if a computer had a completely different function that did not include creating documents, then it would not cause a typewriter to be obsolete. In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so it does not involve doing something completely different than the Mosaic Covenant. In Hebrews 8:13, it states the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, not hat the Mosaic Law is obsolete. What I said is also in accordance with the definition that you gave.

by the deeds of the law, NO one will be justified ( saved) in His sight.” (V. 20)

The issue of the way to become righteous is different than the issue of what it means to become righteous. The only way for someone to become righteous is through faith apart from being required to have first done enough righteous works in order to earn it as the result, but what it means for someone to become righteous is for them to become a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Mosaic Law. This is why the same faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works does not abolish our need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Mosaic Law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31). Jesus embodied the righteousness of God through His works and what that looked like was a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was given to describe the life of someone who is righteous as it describes the life of Christ, but was never given as a way of becoming righteous. Again, the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ (Romans 3:21-22). In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is God's law, and in 1 John 3:4-7, everyone who is a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law is righteous.

Hebrews 7:12

That verse is not speaking about a change of the law in regard to it is content such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery and sinful to refrain from committing murder, but rather rather the context is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would also involve a change of the law in regard to its administration. A priesthood administered by God's Word made flesh does not involve doing something that is other than or contrary to God's Word.

If the Bible is not in harmony with what I am teaching, who do you think needs to change?

The position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded if fundamentally basic to the NT and is not in harmony with what you are teaching, so you need to change your views in order to align with the Bible.

 

[Soyeong]

Let me introduce another proof and argument from the Word of God about the two covenants—the Old Testament law of Moses and the New Testament law of Christ.

This time from Romans 7. I admit that Romans is not an easy book to understand and I don’t fully understand EVERY thing in the book; but some things are easy to understand what he says.

In the very first verse, he tells us the subject—the law. Specifically the Old Testament law of Moses. He then uses an ILLUSTRATION ABOUT MARRIAGE to illustrate what he is saying about the law. The marriage illustration is another subject but remember he is using that to make a point about the law.

They knew and understood that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives, just like the marriage law of a husband has dominion over a woman as long as her husband lives; BUT, if her husband dies, she is RELEASED from that marriage law. So, if while her husband is alive, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress. V. 3. But if her husband dies, she is FREE from that law so she is no adulteress even though she is married to another man. Remember, Paul is making a point here—not about marriage—but about the old law.

Verse 4- “Therefore, ( in like manner), YOU have also become DEAD to the (old) law through the body of Christ ( remember Col. 2:12) so that you can be married to another ( Christ) to Him who was raised from the dead. Do you see the significance of that argument? You cannot be “married” to the Old Testament law and married to Christ at the same time. That is spiritual “adultery”! That means you cannot serve or keep both at the same time. You must be “dead” to the old law so that you can legally be married to Christ. This is figurative language used to portray a spiritual”truth.” The Spirit says we are “DEAD” to the old law and in verse 6 He says we have been “DELIVERED” from the old law, HAVING DIED TO WHAT WE WERE HELD BY, so that we can serve in the “Newness” of the spirit ( Christ ) and NOT IN THE OLDNESS OF THE LETTER.”

We cannot be married to Christ unless we are DEAD to the old law. As Christ said in another place, “you cannot serve two masters”, so we cannot serve and keep 2 laws at the same time. We must be “DEAD” to the one, so that we are FREE to be married to the other.

In Romans 7-8:2, 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 waging war against the law of his mind, that he served with his flesh, and that the Law of the Spirit has freed us from. The Law of God leads us to do what is godly, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) while the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5), so we need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God.

Verses that refer to doing something that would be absurd for Paul to delight in doing should not be interpreted as referring to the Law of God, such as it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:5-6 as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death and delighted in being held captive to sin, but rather that is the role of the law of sin and it is the law of sin that Paul described as holding him captive. Verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin, such as with Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, Galatians 2:19, Galatians 5:16-18, and 1 Corinthians 15:56.

In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not describe the Law of God, 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 3:20, it is by the Law of God that we have knowledge of what sin is, so we are still under it, but are not under the law of sin. In Romans 6:16-23, Paul continued to contrast these two directions where we are slaves to the one that we obey, either the law of sin, which leads to death, or obedience to the Law of God, which leads to righteousness. We are no longer to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin, but are now to present ourselves as slaves to God and 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.

When you are not being careful, then you can interpret Romans 7:1-4 as saying that we need to die to God's gift of eternal life. At no point in Romans 7:1-4 was the woman set free from needing to obey the Law of God, and if she were to get married to another husband after the death of her first husband, 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 died to the Law of God. It doesn't even make sense to think the way to become unified in marriage to God's Word made flesh is by rejecting everything he taught and by dying to God's Word, rather we need to die to the law of sin in order to be unified with Christ. It is absurd to think that the way to commit spiritual adultery with Christ is by following his example. Likewise, it would be absurd 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 bearing fruit for God, namely the law of sin.

 

[GWH]

1. Romans 1:16 says the Gospel reveals that salvation/election (s/e) is for “everyone who believes”, both Jew and Gentile.

2. Romans 1:17 describes s/e as “righteousness from God” that is by faith “from first to last” or from creation until the end.

3. Romans 2:4 teaches that God’s kindness or patience with sinners is meant to lead them toward repentance, which implies that sinners are able to repent because of God’s leading.

4. Romans 2:5 warns that those who do not repent but instead stubbornly resist God’s leading are storing up wrath against themselves for the day when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed, which implies that God enables sinners to repent–or not (cf. Deut. 30:19).

5. Romans 2:6 affirms what is called karma by saying that “God will give to each person according to what he has done”, which (in Gal. 6:7-9) is called reaping what a person sows.

6. Romans 2:7 speaks of the need for “persistence in doing good” and seeking glory, honor and immortality in order to receive s/e or eternal life, which echoes what Jesus commanded (in Matt. 7:7) and connects with the doctrine of perseverance (cf. Heb. 10:36 & Jam. 1:3-4).

7. Romans 2:11 teaches that “God does not show favoritism” (cf. Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1Pet. 1:17), which is how God judges people justly, so the fact that some sinners ignore God’s Gospel indicates that His will or leading is resistible because of MFW.

8. Romans 2:15 teaches that sinful souls have a conscience or awareness of “the requirements of the law”, which may be combined with Romans 1:20 to teach that God’s power and moral nature or will may be perceived via creation and conscience (called natural revelation), thus those unfamiliar with God’s Word in Scripture have no good reason for resisting divine leading and choosing atheism/evil.

9. Romans 3:20-21 states the law makes souls conscious of sin and that “the Law and Prophets testify” or prepare the way for the new revelation of righteousness from God apart from the Law, which takes up where Romans 1:17 left off.

10. Romans 3:22a says that “righteousness from God” or s/e comes through faith “in Jesus Christ” (cf. Eph. 2:8), a phrase Paul used eleven times in Ephesians 1:3-14 to indicate s/e.

11. Romans 3:22b says that God’s righteousness is given “to all who believe—there is no difference”” signifying that all sinners may believe or be s/e (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16, Tit. 2:11), because there is no favoritism (#7).

12. Romans 3:23 teaches that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, meaning that no one can be good enough to earn salvation because of their own merit.

13. Romans 3:24 says sinners “are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (via faith per v.22, cf. 3:27-28); s/e is free because Christ paid the price/cost.

14. Romans 3:25a explains redemption as being “a sacrifice of atonement” for those who have faith in Christ’s work of dying in their place.

15. Romans 3:25b further explains that God demonstrated his just patience (#3) or forbearance in leaving unpunished those sins committed before the revealing of the Gospel (foreshadowed in Gen. 22:8 & 13), implying that sinners had/have the opportunity to believe and be s/e thereby demonstrating God’s justice/not showing favoritism (#11).

16. Romans 3:26 continues to emphasize divine justice by declaring it three ways (“justice…, just…, justifies”), which justness is synonymous with righteousness (2Thes. 1:5-6, Heb. 6:10).

17. Romans 4:1-25 presents Abraham as a Gentile who became the physical father of the Jews and the spiritual father of all who choose to have faith in God/Christ.

18. Romans 5:1 echoes Eph. 2:8 by describing s/e as justification through faith, Eph. 1:5 & 7 by using the phrase “through Jesus Christ”, and Eph. 2:14 by describing s/e as having peace with God.

19. Romans 5:2 & 5 also echo Eph. 2:18 & 3:1 by describing s/e as having access to God’s grace via the Holy Spirit.

20. Romans 5:6-10 states that God’s love (cf. kindness in #3) for the ungodly, for sinners and for His enemies is demonstrated by Christ dying for their s/e or justification/reconciliation.

21. Romans 5:12-21 describes s/e in corporate terms, saying that–like the first man–all (many?) men also sinned and died, and God’s grace comes to all (many?) because of Jesus Christ.

22. Romans 6:1-14 describes s/e in terms of Christians being united with Christ’s death and resurrection, so they who are under grace should not allow sin to reign in their bodies but should instead serve God as instruments of righteousness.

23. Romans 6:15-23 describes s/e in terms of being slaves to whom one willingly obeys, whether to sin or to obedience of God’s teaching that leads to righteousness, which results in eternal life “in Christ Jesus our Lord” (cf. #10).

24. Romans 7:1-6 describes s/e in terms of a wife’s remarriage after the death of her husband, saying that Christians have been released from the dead letter of the law so that they may serve God in the new way of the Spirit.

25. In Romans 7:7-25 Paul describes s/e in terms of struggle between what a person’s conscience wants to do and what his sinful nature causes him to do until he is rescued by Christ.

26. In Romans 8:1-25 Paul describes the s/e struggle in terms of Christians–who are indwelt by the Spirit and freed from living in accordance with the sinful nature—as putting to death sinful deeds, because they are God’s children and co-heirs of Christ’s glorious resurrection.

 

[Soyeong]

Well, of course Jesus quoted from the old law of Moses. It was the only law of God in existence at that time. What else was He going to quote from? There was no “New testament at that time. Jesus had not yet died on the cross( Col. 2:14). His “New” covenant was not yet in effect; and the “New” covenant was not yet written down. So what choice did He have? Besides, that old law was still in effect at that time. It had not yet been “taken away.” Col 2:14.
Just because Jesus quoted from the law that was in existence at that time is not unusual, nor is it proof that the old law is still in effect now. That is no proof of anything. ALL evidence is to the contrary. You just keep saying the same thing regardless of the evidence from scripture that is presented.

Jesus did not need to quote from it the OT, but he chose to do quote from it as an authoritative source. Jesus could have said something along the lines that the Father didn't really know what He was doing when He gave the law, that a lot of it is no longer an authoritative source because it needs corrections, and he was giving a brand new set of laws that we should follow instead, but rather he affirmed that man shall live by every word that comes from the mouth of God, which doesn't leave room to think that the Law of Christ is something other than or contrary to anything that has come from the mouth of God.

Jesus did not establish the New Covenant until the end of his ministry, which means that everything that he taught prior to that point was in regard to how to live under the Mosaic Covenant, so the New Covenant also involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33), so everything he taught was also in regard to how to live under the New Covenant. If Jesus had intended for anything that he spent his ministry teaching to be nullified by the cross, then he could have said that, but he very notably did not say anything along those lines. In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from the Mosaic Law, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus spent his ministry teaching and in what he accomplished through the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20) while the way to reject everything that he accomplished is by returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from. The reason why Jesus established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or in order to cause us to be free to return to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from or that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but that the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20).

Jesus had not yet died on the cross( Col. 2:14

In Matthew 27:37, they nailed a handwritten sign to Christ's cross that announced the charge that was against him that he was the King of the Jews. This fits perfectly with the concept of the handwritten list of the charges that were against us being nailed to Christ's cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with nailing any laws to the cross.

Tell us, do you not believe in the validity of the New Testament? Do you not believe the New Testament is inspired by God? Do you BELIEVE the scriptures that have been presented from the New Testament showing that the old Jewish law has been done away? Are you an unbeliever? You have never offered a comment on any scripture that shows that the old law is obsolete. We’d like to hear your explanation of Galatians 2:16, 5:4, or Hebrews 7:12, 19, 8:7, 13, 9:16-17, 10:9 and Romans 7:1-6. How do you explain these scriptures from God’s word? Do you believe the New Testament is inspired by God?

I believe in the validity and inspiration of the New Testament, though I do not agree with the validity of you interpreting the Scriptures that you have presented as as showing that the Law of God has been done away with, especially because if your interpretation were correct, then that would call the validity of the NT into question. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His children to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying His law, it is contradictory for someone to believe in the validity and inspiration of the NT while also thinking that it should be interpreted as speaking against obeying God's law.

We’d like to hear your explanation of Galatians 2:16,

The fact that we can't earn our justification as the result of our obedience to God does not mean that we are not obligated to obey Him. The Mosaic Law was never given as a way of earning our justification, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't obey it for the purposes for which it was given.

Galatians 5:4

God wanted His children to repent and to return to obedience to His law all throughout the Bible, and even Christ began his ministry with that Gospel message (Matthew 4:15-23), so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul earning us against obeying God and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we repent and believe the Gospel of Christ. However, if you think that Paul was warning us against obeying God, then the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be quicker to disregard everything that Paul has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded. However, the reality is that Paul was a servant of God who therefore never spoke against obeying anything that He has commanded.

 

[God-fearing]

Our present United States of America has been under 3 different Laws in under 230 years. 1) the first “law” was the law of England. 2) then, after we won our freedom, we were under The Laws of Confederation, 3) Now, we are ruled by The Constitution of the United States of America—in under 230 years.
It’s not hard to see how God has changed His “laws” in the THOUSANDS of years man has been in existence.

In the Bible, there also are 3 different “laws” that are portrayed as being in effect at different times. In the beginning ( Genesis), early mankind did not have a “written law.” We see God communicating to people directly from heaven. Sometimes in dreams, sometimes in visions, sometimes speaking from heaven. Historians sometimes call this the “Patriarchal Law”— when God spoke directly to the “fathers”. Patriarch” means “father.” God chose a man named Abraham through whom He would bring a chosen nation of people and the Christ into the world. After the book of Genesis, in Exodus, we see God giving a written “law” to his people, the Jews, when they come out of Egypt. This covenant between God and the Jews was ONLY for the Jews. It was not for gentiles. God did not make a covenant with Gentiles. Deut. 5:3. This covenant with the Jews lasted 1500 years and was a “written” law. This was and is the Old Testament law. It was a law of “works.” There were many, many sacrifices to be offered; holy days to be kept; feast days, festivals, offerings, new moons, laws about foods, At this time Israel was a NATION of people. This Old Testament law contained laws for CIVIL government as well as their RELIGIOUS laws. So you have laws for different offenses and crimes along with what punishments went with each crime. The Old Testament books of Exodus, Leviticus, numbers and Deuteronomy are called “the books of the law.” Read those and you will get a good understanding of what the “ Old” law was about.

However, even in the Old Testament, God spoke through Jeremiah the prophet and said, that ONE DAY, He would MAKE A NEW COVENANT with His people, NOT LIKE that first covenant He made with them when He brought them out of Egypt.

This “Old Testament law” was still in effect and governed the Jews in the first four books of the New Testament. Jesus lived under this law and kept it perfectly. Jesus had been circumcised the 8th day, according to the “law”; He kept the “Passover”; the rich young ruler came to Him asking about the “law” and Jesus told him to keep the commandments found in this law. God wants every one of His followers to obey whatever law they are living under. We are not to be “lawbreakers.” Romans 13:1. Jesus often contended with the Jewish leaders—Pharisees, Sadducee's, and priests —about this law because they distorted it adding their own interpretations and traditions.

Here is what religious people today do not understand. THIS LAW CAME TO AN END. It is not in force or in effect today. Even the Jews today are no longer required to keep that old law. And certainly NOT GENTILES!! If it was not for gentiles in the Bible and gentiles did not keep it then—then it is not for gentiles today and gentiles today are not required to keep it.

Jesus said He did not come to destroy the old law but to FULFILL it, and fulfill it He did. He says NOT ONE WORD would PASS AWAY UNTILL….until what? UNTIL ALL IS FULFILLED. Matthew 5:17-18. Jesus fulfilled EVERY prophesy about Him that the Old Testament ever made. Someone said that there were more than 30 prophesies about Christ in the Old Testament. He FULFILLED THEM ALL! When Jesus died on the cross, Some of His final words were, “It is finished.” What was finished? I can think of several things: His WORK here on earth that the Father gave Him to do, was finished. The fulfilling of every prophesy about him was finished. The Old Testament law was finished. It was fulfilled. The theme of the Old Testament was “A MESSIAH IS COMING!” The purpose of a “chosen” people was to bring the Messiah into the world. Jesus came; Jesus fulfilled; Jesus offered the last, supreme sacrifice. Jesus died. It is finished. All is fulfilled; the will of God is complete; the work is done.

Here is what the NEW TESTAMENT says about the old law:
Colossians 2:14, “…having WIPED OUT the handwriting of requirements ( old law) which was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has TAKEN IT OUT OF THE WAY nailing it to His cross.”

Hebrews 9:16-17, “ For where there is a TESTAMENT, there must also be the DEATH OF THE TESTAOR. For a testament ( or will) is in force AFTER MEN ARE DEAD. Since it has noPOWER at all while the testator LIVES.” The Old law of the Jews ended, that Old Testament law given by Moses on Mt. Sinai, ENDED when Jesus died on the cross. He took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross.

The death of the testator—Jesus, brought into force His “ NEW” covenant, the law of Christ, the law of “FAITH”, without the “works” of the old law. That Old Testament law.

To be continued in another thread.

I think we might have a problem here

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus said to the people and to his disciples:

Mat 23:2 The scribes and the Pharisees have the authority of Moses;

Mat 23:3 All things, then, which they give you orders to do, these do and keep: but do not take their works as your example, for they say and do not

Mal 3:6 For I am the Lord, I am unchanged; and so you, O sons of Jacob, have not been cut off.

Rut 1:16 But Ruth said, Give up requesting me to go away from you, or to go back without you: for where you go I will go; and where you take your rest I will take my rest; your people will be my people, and your God my God.

Rut 1:17 Wherever death comes to you, death will come to me, and there will be my last resting-place; the Lord do so to me and more if we are parted by anything but death.

 

[homwardbound]

Something that is eternal does not change by definition, so for God to have eternals character trait means that the way to be a doer of them does not change. That's part of the definition, not based on my own reasoning.


I did. God's way is the way to know Him and Jesus by embodying His likeness by being a doer of His character traits. For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Jeremiah 9:3 and 9:6, they did not know God and refused to know Him because in 9:13, they had forsaken God's law, while in 9:24, those who know God know that He delights in being a doer of steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in all of the earth, so the way to know God is by delighting in being a doer of God's character traits.

This is exactly the same as the way to know the Son, who 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 Mosaic Law. In 1 John 2:4, those who say that they know Jesus but don't obey his commands are liars, in 1 John 3:4-6, those who continue to be doer of sin in transgression of the Torah have neither seen nor known him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would teach those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them. So the goal of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to know God and Jesus by walking in His way, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3).


If someone disregarded everything that their tutor taught them after the purpose of a tutor was fulfilled, then they would be missing the whole purpose of a tutor. The Mosaic Law leads us to Christ because it was given in order to teach us how to know him, but it does not lead us to Christ so that we can then reject everything that he taught and go back to being doers of what the Mosaic Law reveals to be wickedness.


The Bible often also often uses the same terms to describe the character of God as it does to describe the character of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier of the Mosaic Law (Matthew 23:23), and it could not accurately be described as such if it were not God's instructions for how to be doers of those traits. 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 Mosaic Law. Our goal as followers of Christ should be to be in his likeness through being a doer of His character traits in accordance with the example that he set for us to follow..


I quoted Scripture many times in order to support my position, so I'm not sure why you are acting as if I haven't been doing that. How does it even make sense to you to think that God's righteousness can be eternal while the way to be a doer of His righteousness is temporary? The Bible connects God's eternal righteousness with His eternal righteous laws (Psalms 119:142, 160). If God were to make changes to His law so that it was now contrary to His righteousness sin to be a doer of charity and it was now in accordance with His righteous to take advantage of the poor, the widow, and the orphan, so how could it still be accurate to say that His righteousness is eternal?


In Galatians 3:16-19, it uses the Mosaic Covenant as an example to show that it does not nullify the the promises of pervious covenants that has already been ratified, but that is just as true for any covenant that God makes. The New Covenant also does not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so God's promises are cumulatively valid. If God's promises were temporary, then God would be a liar. Christ did not come with the message to stop repenting because that the law has ended now that he has come and we are now free to be doers of what it revealed to be wickedness, but just the opposite, he came with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was in accordance with him being sent as the promised see to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26).


Again, one thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer causes a typewriter be something that is no longer in use because it has cumulative functionality, but it does not cause a plow to be no longer in use because it does not have cumulative functionality. If the Mosaic Covenant had a function that the New Covenant doesn't have, then the New Covenant would not cause the Mosaic Covenant to no longer be in use. A computer is better than a typewriter and a computer replaces a typewriter because it has cumulative functionality, but if a computer had a completely different function that did not include creating documents, then it would not cause a typewriter to be obsolete. In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so it does not involve doing something completely different than the Mosaic Covenant. In Hebrews 8:13, it states the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, not hat the Mosaic Law is obsolete. What I said is also in accordance with the definition that you gave.


The issue of the way to become righteous is different than the issue of what it means to become righteous. The only way for someone to become righteous is through faith apart from being required to have first done enough righteous works in order to earn it as the result, but what it means for someone to become righteous is for them to become a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Mosaic Law. This is why the same faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works does not abolish our need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Mosaic Law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31). Jesus embodied the righteousness of God through His works and what that looked like was a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was given to describe the life of someone who is righteous as it describes the life of Christ, but was never given as a way of becoming righteous. Again, the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ (Romans 3:21-22). In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is God's law, and in 1 John 3:4-7, everyone who is a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law is righteous.


That verse is not speaking about a change of the law in regard to it is content such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery and sinful to refrain from committing murder, but rather rather the context is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would also involve a change of the law in regard to its administration. A priesthood administered by God's Word made flesh does not involve doing something that is other than or contrary to God's Word.



The position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded if fundamentally basic to the NT and is not in harmony with what you are teaching, so you need to change your views in order to align with the Bible.

What started the change in me. Eph 1:13, Phil 1:6, John 1:29., John19:30
I finally one day accepted from God by Son I am reconciled, I turned to Father in thanksgiving and praise and went to the throne of Grace for me by Son for us all. I heard Father speak, "I" Love you!
Woe, became me and so I stand in trust to Daddy. PaPa, Father thanks to risen son for me to be new by this love
Now I rejoice in

King James Version



1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

Law is Love and mercy and has been not changed ever. Misunderstood by many, includes me. Now see
Commands 1-4 as Loving god above everything and everyone else, including self
5-10 my neighbor as myself, and even better than that
Loving all as Son has first loved me. I cannot truly love anyone unless I see the love of God through Son given me frist
1 John 4:19
We love him, because he first loved us.

Can we now appreciate and not use this gift to get our own ways of thought(s) as if one is better than another?
Luke 18:9-14 and today it is after the cross, not before the cross as those passages are talking about what was about to be done once for us all, reconciled by God Father through Son
thank you Daddy, PaPa, Father