Love fulfills the law but Gentiles were never under the Mosaic law anyway.
The old covenant was strictly between Israel and God.
The old covenant was not between Rome and God.
True.
True.
True.
Love fulfills the law but Gentiles were never under the Mosaic law anyway.
The old covenant was strictly between Israel and God.
The old covenant was not between Rome and God.
I would challenge you to read both Deuteronomy and Revelation. They have the exact same outline. They both begin with a preamble, followed by a historical prologue. Then both deal with the terms of a covenant. The first then goes on to iterate the repercussions for not keeping the terms of the covenant, and the second tells of the impending judgment for not keeping the stipulations of that same covenant. They both conclude with an means of continuation of God's plan...a way forward, if you will.PaulThomson said:
Your interpretation of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New relies on your parsing terms in an ad hoc manner that is convenient for the outcome you desire. You may be correct in the way you are dividing of the word of truth, but it seems rather a contrived version of history to me. It is clear that many elements of the Old Covenant are still present in the world as Judaism, and it has not even yet passed away completely, even though in God's economy it is already obsolete and powerless.
Okay. I read Matt. 21. Are you claiming that Jesus, the landowner, returned to Jerusalem in 70 AD? His appearing as lightning fills the sky from east to west so that every eye would see Him happened in 70 AD? I can't see how that can be historically correct.
You are free to believe that. It doesn't make sense to me, though.
We at least agree there.
There is only one kind of faith, the faith that believes. That faith nay be placed in a myriad of different things. That faith put in Christ is what saves us from death and sin and the world and the devil. There are many things which, if we put our faith in them, are spiritually deadly. There are also many things, for which putting our faith in them is eminently useful and practical.
It is very tiresome trying to engage in discussion with people who lack any understanding of logic... but I am a fairly patient man, so I keep trying. And I also realise that although the posters I may be discussing with have no logic compass and are drifting rudderless, other readers of our posts will understand and benefit from what I am actually saying.You just contradicted yourself. There is "only one kind of faith" -- that faith that truly has Christ and him alone as its object; but you also admitted that faith can have wrong objects, ergo such faith is spurious. The false disciples who chased after Jesus in John 6 had this latter kind of faith; for the real object of their faith were the benefits that Jesus could offer them, such as keeping their bellies full.
Believing that God raised Jesus from the dead and confessing Him as Lord puts a person into Christ.
It is very tiresome trying to engage in discussion with people who lack any understanding of logic... but I am a fairly patient man, so I keep trying. And I also realise that although the posters I may be discussing with have no logic compass and are drifting rudderless, other readers of our posts will understand and benefit from what I am actually saying.
I did not contradict myself. Faith directed toward different objects does not make the faith different. A telescope aimed at different celestial bodies does not become a different telescope every time it changes the object it is focused upon.
"If I understood"? If you understand it, then maybe you could explain it to us, rather than just insinuation you have some special gnosis that others lesser Bible students don't have.
Why do you say The OC ended with the fall of Jerusalem, when it is clearly still even now in the process of fading away? Judaism is still being practised today, Cameron.
If you think satan has no power over any Christians today, you are an ideologue who does not use his eyes to garner evidence. He is still deceiving many Christians today and capturing them to do his will.
What about synagogues where obedience to the Mosaic laws of the Old Covenant is still being taught as being in place. Why do you not see these as vestiges of the Old Covenant that need to be forever obliterated?
The temple has been destroyed before. why did its destruction at the hands of Babylon not end Judaism?Why can't you see that Biblical Judaism DIED in 70 A.D.? In fact, just as important, if not more so, than temple worship that involved blood sacrifices, the priesthood, etc. is that the temple housed the very PRESENCE of God in Israel. Just like the body is dead when the soul separates from it, or when a soul is dead because it is separated from the life of God, so too Judaism died when God separated himself from Israel's earthly temple, which actually was initiated at the Cross. God no longer dwells with the nation of Israel! Therefore, Israel's post-70 A.D. Judaism is as dead as national Israel herself is dead to God!
Christians are comprised of two men: the old man driven by the flesh and manipulable by the devil, and the new man empowered by the Holy Spirit. Christians can allow the old man to live, or crucify the old man by yielding to the Holy Spirit. Your assertion that Satan cannot take control of Christians is just not tenable when we listen to the complete body of New Testament teaching.The "Judaism" that is being practiced today is not sanctioned in scripture, for it is a man-made version of biblical Judaism. Without the temple, the priesthood and sacrifices, there is NO BIBLICAL JUDAISM! Biblical Judaism died an ignoble death in 70 A.D. with the destruction of the temple.
And Cam is correct! Satan has NO power over Jesus' true disciples. Satan cannot control God's seed, only his own offspring!
1 John 3:7-10
7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
NIV
It is the ungodly world that is under the devil's power -- those who live under the control of the flesh, the world and their evil father; not Christ's Church! How long have you been an admirer of the devil? And notice that v. 8b is not in the future tense, as you claim by your earthly millennial kingdom nonsense. John did not teach that Christ will appear to destroy the devils' work -- but rather that He HAS APPEARED, i.e. his first advent!
But it isn't faith alone that saves: It's the OBJECT of that Faith that saves! Faith is not an end but rather a means to the End.
Therefore, what defines anyone's faith is the object of it! The world is filled with "believers" in something or another! Faith did not hang on a cross and atone for anyone's sins; rather Jesus did!
Why is winning an argument more important to you that getting to truth?
One cannot believe that Jesus rose from the dead and confess He is Lord without believing God did some stuff that I did not do to make those two things true. My answer does not in any way deny that we are saved because of God.So then being in Christ is what sinners do for themselves when they repent and believe the gospel? Why am I not surprised that you boast in the might and power and wisdom and smarts of sinners? Yet, it is written:
1 Cor 1:26-31
26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things — and the things that are not — to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God — that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
NIV
Smooth move, Mr. PT: You just contradicted scripture.
The bible doesn't teach that grace is limited, so I've determined that I'll call those that have adopted that particular philosophy "limited gracers." Perhaps this might explain their own sparse allotment of grace.Still, I would encourage you to stick with what the Bible teaches.
The topic was whether there is a natural man, the man of the flesh. I would think with everything I said about him in my postsThe bible doesn't teach that grace is limited, so I've determined that I'll call those that have adopted that particular philosophy "limited gracers." Perhaps this might explain their own sparse allotment of grace.

It has been posited, in so many words that aren't exact to those I'm using, that there is a differing measures of God's grace. It seems some are given a steak dinner while others only get peanut butter sandwiches. Or everybody gets peanut butter sandwiches, but only some are offered the steak dinner. It is my view that the steak dinner is offered to everyone but some stop short of submitting to the dress code and settle for peanut butter sandwiches.I never said it did, The topic was whether there is a natural man, the man of the flesh.
Ah. It just seems odd to say that the man NOT made alive in Christ and with heart uncircumcised is not 100%It has been posited, in so many words that aren't exact to those I'm using, that there is a differing measures of God's grace. It seems some are given a steak dinner while others only get peanut butter sandwiches. Or everybody gets peanut butter sandwiches, but only some are offered the steak dinner. It is my view that the steak dinner is offered to everyone but some stop short of submitting to the dress code and settle for peanut butter sandwiches.
It is also my view that the natural man is as dead as the spirit man, and vise versa, as that is the sure prognosis. The man, as a whole, is deathly sick and in dire deed of a physician. He can do nothing to either heal nor help deliver himself from that certain end. But, there IS help for him, the Great Physician that is so equipped that He is able to raise anyone from death, as He has proved naturally so that all could see and just as skilled at raising the spiritually dead, and coming to Him is indeed effectually confessing our sickness unto death. My view is not that far of a throw from your view, short of the 100 percent anything. I mean, 1 percent alive is quite really dead, physically, so I can't rule out that spiritual death doesn't operate in a similar manner. So, I can go so far as accepting that a man can be born .01 percent spiritually alive and in grave danger of complete death even if his body is 99.99 percent alive, but I can't rule out that that .01 percent of him (the only part that can hear the Spirit) cannot, somehow, with the help of the Word of God, eventually overpower his nature to live as a complete animal.
It is of my opinion that is never too late until one is completely dead dead dead.
I see the definition of "attains" as given per Oxford languages:One attains to life ever after. The other does not.
Quite the distinction.
Attains is the word I thought Scripture uses, but I could be wrong, though we can know we are saved, or have eternal life, so there is that... and of course that is in knowing Jesus Christ. Jesus raises us to new life, while we are dead in our trespasses and sins, which is not the way the free willer thinks of it, since they believe their faith comes first, and then they are raised to new life. So they have put the cart before the horse. They have the corrupt heart of the natural man growing a good fruit which is not possible. The stony ground cannot grow anything lasting.I see the definition of "attains" as given per Oxford languages:
succeed in achieving (something that one desires and has worked for).
"clarify your objectives and ways of attaining them"
how do the completely dead even hope to attain anything? And I am not implying that the source of his hope is not from outside of him, but that hope no less does come from within him.