The Religious Spirit vs. The Pharisee Spirit

[Dino246]

Yes, I would like to know his testimony, but I don't know if that is okay to ask on CC.

I don't see why it would be inappropriate to ask. He's free to refuse. I suspect he will just avoid the question though.

 

[Soyeong]

Methinks Soyeong is a Jew masquerading as a Christian, because I have never heard a Messianic Jew say that Jesus taught we should obey the 613 Mosaic laws in the Torah.

Jesus came as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism and he set a perfect example for us to follow of how to practice Judaism by walking in sinless obedience to the Torah. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith in Jesus who were all zealous for the Torah, which is in accordance with Titus 2:14, where Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so Jews coming to faith in Jesus were not ceasing to practice Judaism. This means that there was a period of time between the resurrection of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews and that Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as the Messiah.

They do not kick against the goad/truth written in:

MT 3:11: "After me [the law/Torah] will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire",

In Psalms 119:142, the Torah is truth, and in John 14:6-11, Jesus embodied the truth through his works, which were in obedience to the Torah, so I am not the one who is kicking against the truth. It is notable that Matthew 3:11 originally doesn't contain what you inserted. Moreover, you are ignoring the issue that Jesus continued to the Gospel message calling for repentance.

And RM 7:4-8:17: "You died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong... to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God... [cf. GL 5:22-23] We have been released from the law to serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code... Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering."

Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law other than the Law of God, such as the law of sin and works of the law, so it is important to correctly identify which law he was speaking to. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Pail said that he served the Law of God with his mind in contrast with saying that he served the law of sin with his flesh and he said that the Law off the Spirit of Life has set us free from the law of sin and death, so the Law of God is not the law of sin and death, but rather they are opposites. 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. The Law of God is His instructions for how to bear fruit for him, so it is absurd to interpret that as saying that we need to die to God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him in order to be free to bear fruit for Him, but rather we need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God.

And GL 2:15-3:25, "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ... If righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing. You foolish Galatians!... [who kick against this goad/truth] Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by believing what you heard?... So Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness... For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse... because the righteous will live by faith. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us... so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit... Why then was the law given at all?... The law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."

In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, in Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted "works of the law" with the Book of the Law, and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he said that our faith upholds the Law of God in contrast with saying that "works of the law" are not of faith, so that phrase does not refer to obedience to the Law of God. According to Deuteronomy 27-28, relying on the Book of the Law is the way to be blessed while not relying on it is the way to be cursed, which is why everyone who relies on works of the law instead of the Book of the Law come under its curse.

In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 that the righteous shall live by faith with a quote from Leviticus 18:5 that the one who obeys the Law of God will live by it, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Law of God. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Law of God, and in 1 John 3:4-7, everyone who is a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God is righteous even as they are righteous, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to an alternative form of living that is in disobedience to the Law of God. God is trustworthy, therefore He is a gift of trustworthy instructions (Psalms 19:7), so the way to trust God is by obediently trusting in His instructions, it is contradictory for someone to think that they should trust in God, but not in His instructions, and the positions it is the Law of God that is not of faith/untrustworthy rather than works of the law is the position that denies the trustworthiness/faithfulness of the Lawgiver.

Christ redeeming us from the curse of the law is setting us free from the curse of not relying on the Book of the Law so that we can be free to enjoy the blessing of relying on it. The Law of God was never given as a way of earning our justification as the result of our obedience to it, so that was never the goal of why were should obey it, which makes it that much more true that we do not earn our justification by obeying works of the law. In Acts 3:25-26, Christ was sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness, not to curse us by causing us to be free to do what the Law of God reveals to be wickedness.

In Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, in Christ, through faith, and being children of Abraham and heirs to the promise is all directly connected with being a doer of the Law of God. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who are not a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God are not children of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked. In Matthew 23:23, Christ said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law of God. In John 8:39, Christ said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him.

IOW, the Galatians were foolish for doing what S appears to be doing: reverting to legalism instead of persevering in the original Abrahamic Covenant of faith in God (GN 15:6 & 17:1-7) and Christ's sacrifice foreshadowed by the near-sacrifice of Isaac (GN 22:1-18).

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of God by word and by example, so it is incorrect to interpret Galatians as being opposed to being a follower of Christ.

While it is true that Abraham believed God, so he was justified (Genesis 15:6), it I also true that he believed God, so he obeyed God's command to offer Isaac (Hebrews 11:17), so the same faith by which he was justified was also expressed by being an obeyer of God, but he did not earn his justification as a wage as the result of his obedience (Romans 4:1-5). In James 2:21-24, it quotes Genesis 15:6 to support saying that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered Isaac, that his faith was active along with his works, and his faith completed his works, so he was justified by his works insofar as they were the way to express his faith, but not insofar as they were earning a wage.

 

[Soyeong]

Yes, I would like to know his testimony, but I don't know if that is okay to ask on CC.

I grew up as a Baptist being taught to have a negative view of obeying the Law of God. The Psalms express an extremely positive view of obeying the Law of God, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so one day I realized that if I was going to continue to believe that the Psalms are Scripture, then I needed to also believe that they therefore express a correct view of obeying the Law of God and that I needed to change my view to match the Psalms. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't believe in the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of getting to obey the Law of God. Moreover, the authors of the NT considered the Psalms to be Scripture, so they should be interpreted as though they were in complete agreement with the view of obeying the Law of God that they express, especially because Paul also said that he delighted in obeying it (Romans 7:22). This completely reoriented how I interpret the NT and I've found that it makes much more sense and has much more continuity than I had given it credit for. It no longer makes sense to me for people to hold the position that Paul was a servant of God while also interpreting him as speaking against obeying God's commands.

 

[GWH]

I grew up as a Baptist being taught to have a negative view of obeying the Law of God. The Psalms express an extremely positive view of obeying the Law of God, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so one day I realized that if I was going to continue to believe that the Psalms are Scripture, then I needed to also believe that they therefore express a correct view of obeying the Law of God and that I needed to change my view to match the Psalms. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't believe in the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of getting to obey the Law of God. Moreover, the authors of the NT considered the Psalms to be Scripture, so they should be interpreted as though they were in complete agreement with the view of obeying the Law of God that they express, especially because Paul also said that he delighted in obeying it (Romans 7:22). This completely reoriented how I interpret the NT and I've found that it makes much more sense and has much more continuity than I had given it credit for. It no longer makes sense to me for people to hold the position that Paul was a servant of God while also interpreting him as speaking against obeying God's commands.

Thanks for sharing. I also grew up as a Baptist but when I read PS 119 I viewed it as referring to both the OT and the NT Gospel. The NT authors viewed all of the OT as Scripture, but they reoriented the OT in light of the NT which gives the Bible complete continuity, whereas you apparently did/do the opposite, which explains why you are reluctant to affirm GRFS in NT terminology, but of course only God will judge whether such belief qualifies as accepting Christ as Lord and is therefore salvific. Hope to see you in heaven!

 

[Soyeong]

Thanks for sharing. I also grew up as a Baptist but when I read PS 119 I viewed it as referring to both the OT and the NT Gospel. The NT authors viewed all of the OT as Scripture, but they reoriented the OT in light of the NT which gives the Bible complete continuity, whereas you apparently did/do the opposite, which explains why you are reluctant to affirm GRFS in NT terminology, but of course only God will judge whether such belief qualifies as accepting Christ as Lord and is therefore salvific. Hope to see you in heaven!

I showed that the Gospel that Jesus taught that called for our obedience to God's law was the same as the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham, so the OT and NT Gospels as the same.

About 1/3 of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT, which the NT authors did thousands of times in order to show that it supported what they were saying, so while they interpreted the OT, what they said should not be interpreted as being contrary to what they considered to be Scripture, such as with the passages from Galatians and Romans that you referenced. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so he shouldn't be interpreted as saying things that they would have outright rejected. Interpreting the NT authors as speaking against doing what God commanded in the OT is not in continuity with the OT, especially when the OT says that anyone who speaks against doing what God has commanded is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him (Deuteronomy 13).

I still have no idea what GRFS stands for.

Jesus is God's word made flesh, so the way to accept him is by obeying God's word in accordance with what he spent his ministry teaching to do by word and by example, not by turning the NT against obeying God's word. Jesus leading us to be a doer of God's word is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being a doer of God's word.

I also hope to see you in heaven.

 

[GWH]

I showed that the Gospel that Jesus taught that called for our obedience to God's law was the same as the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham, so the OT and NT Gospels as the same.

About 1/3 of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT, which the NT authors did thousands of times in order to show that it supported what they were saying, so while they interpreted the OT, what they said should not be interpreted as being contrary to what they considered to be Scripture, such as with the passages from Galatians and Romans that you referenced. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so he shouldn't be interpreted as saying things that they would have outright rejected. Interpreting the NT authors as speaking against doing what God commanded in the OT is not in continuity with the OT, especially when the OT says that anyone who speaks against doing what God has commanded is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him (Deuteronomy 13).

I still have no idea what GRFS stands for.

Jesus is God's word made flesh, so the way to accept him is by obeying God's word in accordance with what he spent his ministry teaching to do by word and by example, not by turning the NT against obeying God's word. Jesus leading us to be a doer of God's word is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being a doer of God's word.

I also hope to see you in heaven.

NOT the "same", because Jesus and NT authors did NOT call for obedience to the same old law but rather reformed it (MT 5:17-48, HB 7:18-10:1) and called for obedience to the new law/faith for all/GRFS/kerygma, which may be summarized as follows:

1. There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (DT 6:4, JN 3:16, 2THS 1:6), who is both able (2TM 1:12) and willing (1TM 2:3-4) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
2. Human beings are selfish or sinful (RM 3:23, 2TM 3:2-4, CL 3:5), miserable (GL 5:19-21), and hopeless (EPH 2:12) when they reject God’s salvation or DOD (JN 3:18).
3. Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ or the way (means of providing salvation) that God has chosen (JN 3:16, ACTS 16:30-31, PHP 2:9-11), although pre-NT truthseekers could/can learn a proto-gospel via general revelation combined with conscience.
4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (LK 2:11, JN 14:6, ACTS 16:31), which means trying to obey His commandment to love one another (MT 22:37-40, JN 13:35, RM 13:9)—forever (MT 10:22, PS 113:2).
5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept Him (RV 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning God’s Word everyone cooperates fully with His will (RM 8:6-17, GL 6:7-9, EPH 1:13-14, HB 10:36, 12:1, JM 1:2-4).

 

[Soyeong]

NOT the "same", because Jesus and NT authors did NOT call for obedience to the same old law but rather reformed it (MT 5:17-48, HB 7:18-10:1) and called for obedience to the new law/faith for all/GRFS/kerygma, which may be summarized as follows:

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so Jesus did not reform it, rather he set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to it, and he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced. In John 15:10, Jesus used a parallel statement to equate his commands with those of the Father, and in John 14:24, he said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father. God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses.

The Law of Moses is the God of Israel's instructions for how to know Him him through being a doer of His character traits, so following a different set of laws would involve following a different God with a different set of character traits, but the character traits of God are eternal, which is why all of God's laws are also eternal. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:142), so the way to do what is righteous will be be reformed. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character, which he embodied by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so if he had been any less than that, then worshiping him would have been idolatry, and if he had reformed God's law, then he would have been causing us to commit idolatry. A priesthood with God's word made flesh at its head should not be considered to be following anything other than God's word.

In Matthew 4, Jesus preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he preceded a quote from 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. In Matthew 4, Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by reforming God's law, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being said about it and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. In other words, God graciously teaching us to obey the Mosaic Law is His gift of salvation.

 

[GWH]

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so Jesus did not reform it, rather he set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to it, and he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced. In John 15:10, Jesus used a parallel statement to equate his commands with those of the Father, and in John 14:24, he said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father. God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses.

The Law of Moses is the God of Israel's instructions for how to know Him him through being a doer of His character traits, so following a different set of laws would involve following a different God with a different set of character traits, but the character traits of God are eternal, which is why all of God's laws are also eternal. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:142), so the way to do what is righteous will be be reformed. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character, which he embodied by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so if he had been any less than that, then worshiping him would have been idolatry, and if he had reformed God's law, then he would have been causing us to commit idolatry. A priesthood with God's word made flesh at its head should not be considered to be following anything other than God's word.

In Matthew 4, Jesus preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he preceded a quote from 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. In Matthew 4, Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by reforming God's law, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being said about it and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. In other words, God graciously teaching us to obey the Mosaic Law is His gift of salvation.

So DT 4:2 disallows Jesus from being Lord over the OT and your opinion supersedes that of Paul (probably) in HB 7:18-10:1?! Such teaching exemplifies what Paul condemned in GL 5:4-14 & also in 1TM 1:4b-9a, saying:

"God's work is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly... for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful..."

IOW, the OT law was given in order to convict sinners so they would accept/place faith in Christ's Gospel for salvation, NOT revert to the superseded 613 OT requirements.

 

[Soyeong]

So DT 4:2 disallows Jesus from being Lord over the OT and your opinion supersedes that of Paul (probably) in HB 7:18-10:1?! Such teaching exemplifies what Paul condemned in GL 5:4-14 & also in 1TM 1:4b-9a, saying:

Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day as a member of the Mosaic Covenant (Luke 2:21) and he was born under the law (Galatians 4:4), so he was obligated to obey the Mosaic Law, and he was sinless, which means that he never broke it, which includes Deuteronomy 4:2. If Jesus was free to change God's law in whim, then him being sinless would be meaningless, but even if he was free to do that without sinning he did not choose to do that but rather everything he taught was rooted in the OT. I do not think that my opinion supersedes Paul, but rather I don't think that Paul should be interpreted in a way that turns him against what he considered to be Scripture, especially because that would mean that he was a false prophet. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His children to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying His law, so either you are incorrect to interpret authors of the NT as speaking against obeying God's law, or you are correct and according to God you should consider them to be false prophets, but either way we should still obey God's law. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be quicker to disregard everything that any man has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded.

All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Christ began his ministry with that Gospel message (Matthew 5:4), so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning that we will be cut off from Christ if we repent and believe the Gospel of Christ. The problem is that you are continuing to interpret what Paul said against "works of the law" as being said against the Law of God even though Paul contrasted them.

"God's work is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly... for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful..."

The Bible can speak against doing something improperly for incorrect reasons without speaking against doing it properly for correct reasons. Paul said that we know that the law is good if one uses it properly, so what Paul said against those who were teaching it improperly should not be turned against those who are teaching properly.

IOW, the OT law was given in order to convict sinners so they would accept/place faith in Christ's Gospel for salvation, NOT revert to the superseded 613 OT requirements.

God's law does not just convict us our sin, but also teaches us the way that God is saving us from our sin. Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so Jesus graciously teaching us to be a doer of it in accordance with his Gospel is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being a doer of it. God's righteousness and all His righteous laws are eternal, so the way to testify about His righteousness will never be superseded. It would require a superior God with superior righteousness to supersede the righteous laws of the God of Israel, but there is none.

 

[Dino246]

For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Pail said that he served the Law of God with his mind in contrast with saying that he served the law of sin with his flesh and he said that the Law off the Spirit of Life has set us free from the law of sin and death, so the Law of God is not the law of sin and death, but rather they are opposites.

Your conclusion is not supported by the text. Paul did not contrast the Law of God with the law of sin and death; he contrasted the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus with the law of sin and death. Don't play games with Scripture and expect to get agreement around here.

in Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted "works of the law" with the Book of the Law

No, he did not. He conflated the works of the law with "everything written in the Book of the Law." Here's the text from the NIV:

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”

and in Romans 3:31, he said that our faith upholds the Law of God in contrast with saying that "works of the law" are not of faith, so that phrase does not refer to obedience to the Law of God.

Miss the point much? Paul wrote clearly that "a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law", not by having faith in the works of the Law!

According to Deuteronomy 27-28, relying on the Book of the Law is the way to be blessed while not relying on it is the way to be cursed, which is why everyone who relies on works of the law instead of the Book of the Law come under its curse.

That's just wacky. Do you think somehow that "relying on the Book of the Law" is something other than doing what it says, which would be "the works of the Law"? Further, you're either under the covenant of Law, or under the covenant in Christ's blood.

Christ redeeming us from the curse of the law is setting us free from the curse of not relying on the Book of the Law so that we can be free to enjoy the blessing of relying on it.

Um, no. See above.

In Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, in Christ, through faith, and being children of Abraham and heirs to the promise is all directly connected with being a doer of the Law of God.

No... they are all directly connected to FAITH.

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of God by word and by example, so it is incorrect to interpret Galatians as being opposed to being a follower of Christ.

Simply put, that does not follow. Jesus died to set us free from the curse of the law, not to keep us under it. Your view makes no sense.

 

[GWH]

Your conclusion is not supported by the text. Paul did not contrast the Law of God with the law of sin and death; he contrasted the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus with the law of sin and death. Don't play games with Scripture and expect to get agreement around here.

No, he did not. He conflated the works of the law with "everything written in the Book of the Law." Here's the text from the NIV:

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”

Miss the point much? Paul wrote clearly that "a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law", not by having faith in the works of the Law!

That's just wacky. Do you think somehow that "relying on the Book of the Law" is something other than doing what it says, which would be "the works of the Law"? Further, you're either under the covenant of Law, or under the covenant in Christ's blood.

Um, no. See above.

No... they are all directly connected to FAITH.

Simply put, that does not follow. Jesus died to set us free from the curse of the law, not to keep us under it. Your view makes no sense.QUOTE]


Amen! It only makes sense as an effort to subvert/supersede the Gospel of Christ.