How can the following statements by Paul corroborate the doctrine created BY Paul: “Paul’s” doctrine of Grace??

[HealthAndHappiness]

If Paul actually taught the Torah had been abolished, and all are now under grace, explain the following.

Romans 7

3 So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress:

but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Paul confirms the 3rd Commandment! Paul confirms -- adultery is Sin! How can this be -- If Torah had been abolished? Why would Paul be teaching “gentiles” in Rome, adultery is Sin?

12 Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Where are the commandments found, in the Torah? Thus, the word “Law” as used by Paul -- is Torah. Why, to Gentiles, is this taught?

Why would Christ or His Father allow to be abolished, what even Paul states is; “HOLY Just and Good”, What was established at THE Beginning as The WAY God judged in “Righteousness”, the world?

Where is it written Paul Is allowed to change, what had been in place for 4000 years? And Why Paul and not Jesus Christ, the Law giver?

NKJV Romans 3

9 What then? Are we (Jews) better than they? Not at all. For we have “”previously”’ charged both Jews and Greeks --- that they are all under sin.

Thus; From the mouth of Paul,,, both Jews and Greeks are --- “Under” the penalty of death for their sins – which IS the transgression of the Torah. 1 John 3: 4.

If the Torah - had been - abolished, how is it possible for Paul to make this statement ?

Some on this blog have stated the Gentiles are not subject to the Torah, only Jews must obey the Torah. That is not what Paul explains to Roman gentiles.

Sorry, Sin remains the transgression of the Torah, according to Paul and is not abolished.

Paul did not state that the Law no longer has value or applies in any way.
He explained that the Old Covenant was superceded by the BETTER Covenant.

Israel and Judah failed to keep the old covenant and was under a curse from God.
Even the most humble man of a generation, Moses, broke the law.

 

[Toknow]

Paul did not state that the Law no longer has value or applies in any way.
He explained that the Old Covenant was superceded by the BETTER Covenant.

Israel and Judah failed to keep the old covenant and was under a curse from God.
Even the most humble man of a generation, Moses, broke the law.

Do we know why the New Covenant is better?

It's better because we have the power of the Holy Spirit now...
something that was not available to those of the Mosaic Covenant.

We are still required to obey God...
but now we can.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Do we know why the New Covenant is better?

It's better because we have the power of the Holy Spirit now...
something that was not available to those of the Mosaic Covenant.

We are still required to obey God...
but now we can.

We should certainly obey the Lord. Crimes and morality were detailed in the Old Covenant/testament. Those still apply in God's view, even if they are not in human jurisprudence.
The ceremonial are no longer in effect.
There's still a purpose for the law, but it does not make one righteous before God. Only Jesus can do that. The Mosaic covenant brought condemnation while the New brings life to all who believe in the Lord.


Hebrews 7
19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

 

[Undergrace1]

The Mosaic covenant brought condemnation .

To be precise, it was the moral law, mainly the Ten Commandments that brought condemnation, the mosaic law of rite, ritual and ceremony could faultlessly be obeyed, even by the worst of sinners(Phil3:6) But the worst of sinners could not obey the TC(Rom7:7-11) Though the law came as one whole law

 

[Toknow]

We should certainly obey the Lord. Crimes and morality were detailed in the Old Covenant/testament. Those still apply in God's view, even if they are not in human jurisprudence.
The ceremonial are no longer in effect.
There's still a purpose for the law, but it does not make one righteous before God. Only Jesus can do that. The Mosaic covenant brought condemnation while the New brings life to all who believe in the Lord.


Hebrews 7
19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Agreed.

 

[memberofthebride]

Do we know why the New Covenant is better?

It's better because we have the power of the Holy Spirit now...
something that was not available to those of the Mosaic Covenant.

We are still required to obey God...
but now we can.

in the Old C the promises were physical, in the NC eternal life is the promise and yes the Holy Spirit is given to those that repent and are baptized, the HS was not offered in the OC

 

[Mem]

At no point was the woman set free from needing to obey the Torah and if she were to get married to another man after the death of her first husband, then she would still be required to refrain from committing adultery, so there is nothing in Romans 7:1-4 that leads to the conclusion that in the same way we have been set free from the Torah. Jesus said nothing about rending the Torah obsolete, but rather he specifically said that he did not come to abolish it and he warned against relaxing the least part of it (Matthew 5:17-19). In Romans 6:19-23, 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 to 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 Torah is His gift of eternal life and Jesus making the Torah obsolete would be making our gift of eternal life obsolete. The Father has made His will known through what He has commanded in the Torah (Psalms 40:8), so making the Torah obsolete would be the opposite of coming to do the will of the Father.

The will of the Father is Torah. And Father willed that His Son, the spotless Lamb, suffer death in spite of having no sin, Can you imagine the conversation regarding this plan? "Son, you're going to become as one of those worms, live perfectly, and then die as they should..." Where is that in the Torah that you keep insisting that we remain under? Nowhere. The Teaching (English translation of "Torah") that you insist on remaining under requires that if you never sin, then you never die and if you sin, then you die. Jesus didn't have to die. He even took some moments to consider reserving His lawful right to live, but He held His Father's will to do as He willed in the utmost honor above His own.

How are you going to follow God when He says, "Come up here," if you insist on staying down there?

 

[Mem]

comment:

The web states there are now 45,000 churches, ranging from Catholics & LDS, to protestants, to JW, baptists on and on, how is it possible the 45,000, all running in many directions -- now know the ONE TRUE GOD?

to my mind this is nothing more then mass confusion. Even on this blog, agreement is rare.
Christians are to be of ONE mind, ONE accord --- not 45,000

Is this supposedly your evidence that I am wrong? or not part of any of the ONE?

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

To be precise, it was the moral law, mainly the Ten Commandments that brought condemnation, the mosaic law of rite, ritual and ceremony could faultlessly be obeyed, even by the worst of sinners(Phil3:6) But the worst of sinners could not obey the TC(Rom7:7-11) Though the law came as one whole law

Obedience to The Law (10 Commandments or the entire pentatuch) was not a means of redemption. We all had to be redeemed from the curse of breaking the law. "There's not a just man upon the earth that doeth good and sinneth not."
Even Paul disobeyed moral laws, however he certainly was an example of a zealous Pharisee.
The Law was that schoolmaster that points us to Christ, the only Savior. What the Jews then and people generally get wrong today is giving credit to their own obedience to the Law as co-redeemers with Christ.
Most cults and pseudo Christian religions acknowledge Jesus as Savior, BUT they add their own 2¢ worth of righteousness. That nullifies any hope of ever getting the gift that was already paid for.

10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ;

 

[Undergrace1]

Obedience to The Law (10 Commandments or the entire pentatuch) was not a means of redemption. We all had to be redeemed from the curse of breaking the law. "There's not a just man upon the earth that doeth good and sinneth not."
Even Paul disobeyed moral laws, however he certainly was an example of a zealous Pharisee.
The Law was that schoolmaster that points us to Christ, the only Savior. What the Jews then and people generally get wrong today is giving credit to their own obedience to the Law as co-redeemers with Christ.
Most cults and pseudo Christian religions acknowledge Jesus as Savior, BUT they add their own 2¢ worth of righteousness. That nullifies any hope of ever getting the gift that was already paid for.

10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ;

Hence Jesus died for the sins of those who lived under the old covenant as well as the new one

 

[Soyeong]

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question Acts15:5&6

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so the topic that they were debating in Acts 15 was not whether followers of Christ should follow Christ, but whether salvation is by grace or by circumcision. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message that Peter argued in Acts 15:5-7 that Gentiles had heard and believed, so he was agreeing with the Pharisees among the believers that Gentiles should obey the Law of Moses. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Law of Moses, which is in accordance with Acts 15:8-9, where Peter argued that Gentiles had received the Spirit and hard their hearts cleansed, so again he was agreeing with the Pharisees from among the believers. 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 Law of Moses, 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, which is in accordance with what Peter ruled in Acts 15:10-11 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so the heavy burden that no one could bear does not refer to the Law of Moses, but to a means of salvation that is an alternative to salvation by grace, namely salvation by circumcision that was proposed by the men from Judea (Acts 15:1).

In Romans 10:5-8, Paul referred to Deuteronomy 30 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to the righteousness that is by faith proclaiming that the Law of Moses is not too difficult for us to obey, that obedience to it brings life and a blessing, in regard to what we are committing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised him from the dead for salvation. So if the Jerusalem Council had been referring to the Law of Moses as being a heavy burden that no one could obey, then they would have been denying the world of faith that we proclaim, they would have been in direct disagreement with God, and they would have been ruling that Gentiles should choose death and a curse rather than life and a blessing. In 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome, so again that would mean that they would have been denying that God's commandants are not burdensome and that Gentiles should not love God. Moreover, the Psalms express an extremely possible view of obeying the Law of Moses, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so they would have been expressing a view of obeying the Law of Moses that is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.

So the leaders of the first century church met to decide which of the laws of Moses gentiles be asked to observe. Four were mentioned, three of which it is widely assumed were given to bring unity at the meeting.

If gentiles are supposed to obey all possible Torah then it is an indisputable fact the leaders of the first century church, including Peter, James and Paul gave gentiles a licence to sin as sin is the transgression of the law. No way around that I’m afraid.

Now some respond to this. ‘’They started with four laws, more would follow in time’’

But God’s applicable laws are not arbitrary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you follow and which ones you ignore. You cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not.

The argument fails anyway, as years later, the leaders of the church confirmed to Paul they were STILL(STILL) only asking gentiles to follow the same four laws, none had been added!(Acts21:25)

Did Paul really believe gentiles must obey all possible Torah?

Either Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list for mature believers or it does not, so it would be contradictory to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also also treating it as being non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow like the greatest two commandments. Moreover, the greatest two commandments are the greatest two because they are inclusive of all of the other commandments, so including them means including the rest of the Torah. It was not given as an exhaustive list for mature believers but as a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers, which they excused in Acts 15:21 by saying that they would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Col2:16&17

Those verses leave room for two scenarios:

1.) The Colossians were not celebrating God's feasts, they were being judged by Jews because they were not celebrating them, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for not celebrating them.

2.) The Colossians were celebrating God's feasts, they were being judged by pagans because they were celebrating them, and Paul was encouraging them to not let anyone judge them for celebrating them.

In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul described the people who were judging the Colossians as promoting human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, which means that they were being judged by pagans and that the 2nd scenario is the case. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from doing that. God's feasts foreshadow what is to come and we should live in a way that testifies about the truth of what is to come by following Christ's example of celebrating them rather than a way that bears false witness against what is to come, so Paul was emphasizing the importance of not allowing anyone to prevent us from obeying God.

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean Rom14:14

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. ALL(ALL) food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble verse20

And of course, Paul was there at the Jerusalem council.

In Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to wether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted in a way that turns it against following God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other over whether or not someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God gave no command to do that.

The Greek words "akathartos" and "koinos" both refer to a type of defilement, but "akathartos" is used in the context of unclean animals while "koinos" is used in the context of the traditions or opinions of men, so it is incorrect to translate both words into English as "unclean" and then to interpret the use of "kiosk" as if they had said "akathartos" instead. Paul was a servant of God, so we should be careful not to mistake things that we only said in regard to the traditions or opinions of men and apply them as if he has been speaking against obeying the commandments of God.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Hence Jesus died for the sins of those who lived under the old covenant as well as the new one

You're right.
Salvation has always been by grace.

 

[Soyeong]

Obedience to The Law (10 Commandments or the entire pentatuch) was not a means of redemption. We all had to be redeemed from the curse of breaking the law. "There's not a just man upon the earth that doeth good and sinneth not."
Even Paul disobeyed moral laws, however he certainly was an example of a zealous Pharisee.
The Law was that schoolmaster that points us to Christ, the only Savior. What the Jews then and people generally get wrong today is giving credit to their own obedience to the Law as co-redeemers with Christ.
Most cults and pseudo Christian religions acknowledge Jesus as Savior, BUT they add their own 2¢ worth of righteousness. That nullifies any hope of ever getting the gift that was already paid for.

10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.

The content of a gift can be the experience of doing something, such as giving someone the opportunity to experience driving a Ferrari, where the gift intrinsically requires them to do the work of driving it in order to have that experience, but where doing that work contributes nothing towards earning the opportunity to experience driving it. We can't earn our righteousness, salvation, or eternal life even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of Moses because it was never given as a way of doing that (Romans 4:1-5), but rather it was given in order to graciously teach what is intrinsically requiring in order to experience the gift of those things.

For example, in Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments, and something that we inherit is a gift, so he was not speaking about the way to contribute our 2¢ towards earning eternal life as the result, but rather he was speaking about what is intrinsically required in order to experience to gift of eternal life. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the Law of Moses is to graciously teach us how experience knowing God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life (John 17:3), and which is why it points us towards Jesus.

Relying on ourselves does not involve relying on anyone else, so it would be contradictory for someone to rely on themselves by obediently relying on God's instructions. 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 would be contradictory for someone to think that we should rely on God for salvation instead of on God's instructions or to think that we should rely on God's Word made flesh instead of on God's Word.

In Titus 2:11-13, the content of our gift of 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 in obedience to the Law of Moses has nothing to do with trying to contribute anything towards earning our salvation as the result, but rather God graciously teaching us to experience being a doer of those works is part of the content of His gift of salvation. Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so Jesus graciously teaching us to experience being doers of it is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being doers of it.

You're right.
Salvation has always been by grace.

In Psalm 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 Law of Moses, 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.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

The content of a gift can be the experience of doing something, such as giving someone the opportunity to experience driving a Ferrari, where the gift intrinsically requires them to do the work of driving it in order to have that experience, but where doing that work contributes nothing towards earning the opportunity to experience driving it. We can't earn our righteousness, salvation, or eternal life even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of Moses because it was never given as a way of doing that (Romans 4:1-5), but rather it was given in order to graciously teach what is intrinsically requiring in order to experience the gift of those things.

For example, in Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments, and something that we inherit is a gift, so he was not speaking about the way to contribute our 2¢ towards earning eternal life as the result, but rather he was speaking about what is intrinsically required in order to experience to gift of eternal life. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the Law of Moses is to graciously teach us how experience knowing God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life (John 17:3), and which is why it points us towards Jesus.

Relying on ourselves does not involve relying on anyone else, so it would be contradictory for someone to rely on themselves by obediently relying on God's instructions. 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 would be contradictory for someone to think that we should rely on God for salvation instead of on God's instructions or to think that we should rely on God's Word made flesh instead of on God's Word.

In Titus 2:11-13, the content of our gift of 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 in obedience to the Law of Moses has nothing to do with trying to contribute anything towards earning our salvation as the result, but rather God graciously teaching us to experience being a doer of those works is part of the content of His gift of salvation. Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so Jesus graciously teaching us to experience being doers of it is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being doers of it.


In Psalm 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 Law of Moses, 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.

Sorry, I just realized it's past my bedtime. Maybe I can get back tomorrow.

Later

 

[Undergrace1]

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so the topic that they were debating in Acts 15 was not whether followers of Christ should follow Christ, but whether salvation is by grace or by circumcision. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message that Peter argued in Acts 15:5-7 that Gentiles had heard and believed, so he was agreeing with the Pharisees among the believers that Gentiles should obey the Law of Moses. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Law of Moses, which is in accordance with Acts 15:8-9, where Peter argued that Gentiles had received the Spirit and hard their hearts cleansed, so again he was agreeing with the Pharisees from among the believers. 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 Law of Moses, 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, which is in accordance with what Peter ruled in Acts 15:10-11 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so the heavy burden that no one could bear does not refer to the Law of Moses, but to a means of salvation that is an alternative to salvation by grace, namely salvation by circumcision that was proposed by the men from Judea (Acts 15:1).

In Romans 10:5-8, Paul referred to Deuteronomy 30 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to the righteousness that is by faith proclaiming that the Law of Moses is not too difficult for us to obey, that obedience to it brings life and a blessing, in regard to what we are committing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised him from the dead for salvation. So if the Jerusalem Council had been referring to the Law of Moses as being a heavy burden that no one could obey, then they would have been denying the world of faith that we proclaim, they would have been in direct disagreement with God, and they would have been ruling that Gentiles should choose death and a curse rather than life and a blessing. In 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome, so again that would mean that they would have been denying that God's commandants are not burdensome and that Gentiles should not love God. Moreover, the Psalms express an extremely possible view of obeying the Law of Moses, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so they would have been expressing a view of obeying the Law of Moses that is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.


Either Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list for mature believers or it does not, so it would be contradictory to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also also treating it as being non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow like the greatest two commandments. Moreover, the greatest two commandments are the greatest two because they are inclusive of all of the other commandments, so including them means including the rest of the Torah. It was not given as an exhaustive list for mature believers but as a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers, which they excused in Acts 15:21 by saying that they would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.


Those verses leave room for two scenarios:

1.) The Colossians were not celebrating God's feasts, they were being judged by Jews because they were not celebrating them, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for not celebrating them.

2.) The Colossians were celebrating God's feasts, they were being judged by pagans because they were celebrating them, and Paul was encouraging them to not let anyone judge them for celebrating them.

In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul described the people who were judging the Colossians as promoting human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, which means that they were being judged by pagans and that the 2nd scenario is the case. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from doing that. God's feasts foreshadow what is to come and we should live in a way that testifies about the truth of what is to come by following Christ's example of celebrating them rather than a way that bears false witness against what is to come, so Paul was emphasizing the importance of not allowing anyone to prevent us from obeying God.


In Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to wether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted in a way that turns it against following God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other over whether or not someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God gave no command to do that.

The Greek words "akathartos" and "koinos" both refer to a type of defilement, but "akathartos" is used in the context of unclean animals while "koinos" is used in the context of the traditions or opinions of men, so it is incorrect to translate both words into English as "unclean" and then to interpret the use of "kiosk" as if they had said "akathartos" instead. Paul was a servant of God, so we should be careful not to mistake things that we only said in regard to the traditions or opinions of men and apply them as if he has been speaking against obeying the commandments of God.

Its a slam dunk Im afraid, and because it is, I will not engage your attempts to say something other

 

[Undergrace1]

The content of a gift can be the experience of doing something, such as giving someone the opportunity to experience driving a Ferrari, where the gift intrinsically requires them to do the work of driving it in order to have that experience, but where doing that work contributes nothing towards earning the opportunity to experience driving it. We can't earn our righteousness, salvation, or eternal life even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of Moses because it was never given as a way of doing that (Romans 4:1-5), but rather it was given in order to graciously teach what is intrinsically requiring in order to experience the gift of those things.

For example, in Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments, and something that we inherit is a gift, so he was not speaking about the way to contribute our 2¢ towards earning eternal life as the result, but rather he was speaking about what is intrinsically required in order to experience to gift of eternal life. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the Law of Moses is to graciously teach us how experience knowing God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life (John 17:3), and which is why it points us towards Jesus.

Relying on ourselves does not involve relying on anyone else, so it would be contradictory for someone to rely on themselves by obediently relying on God's instructions. 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 would be contradictory for someone to think that we should rely on God for salvation instead of on God's instructions or to think that we should rely on God's Word made flesh instead of on God's Word.

In Titus 2:11-13, the content of our gift of 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 in obedience to the Law of Moses has nothing to do with trying to contribute anything towards earning our salvation as the result, but rather God graciously teaching us to experience being a doer of those works is part of the content of His gift of salvation. Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so Jesus graciously teaching us to experience being doers of it is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being doers of it.


In Psalm 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 Law of Moses, 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.

And why do you not answer the following? Can a person be under the new covenant if they have no consciousness of sin at failing to observe a set Saturday sabbath?
Sin is the transgression of the law 1John3:4
Through the law we become conscious of sin Rom3:20
Therefore, if observing a set Saturday sabbath is written in the minds and placed on the hearts of believers, NO ONE can be in a saved state unless they have heartfelt consciousness of sin at failing to observe a set Saturday sabbath

 

[memberofthebride]

Attempting to answer every comment makes no sense, plus the comments are all over the board, very little agreement.

The possibility of changing minds with logic and scripture is nil.

Use facts and logic and a few scriptures I will attempt to explain the difficulty and hesitation involved in accepting a 180-degree change of direction.

My KJV Bible is 1405 pages, Paul wrote 84. Paul wrote 6% of the Bible. The OT is 1157 and the rest of the NT is 164 pages, 94 %.

In 94% of the Bible, God is seeking obedience to His Torah. The last book in the OT, the last chapter of Malachi,

4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the statutes and judgments.

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

God is telling Israel to remember the Law i.e. Torah of Moses and then gives the prophecy of John the Baptist coming before Christ.

In 94 %, God inspired or spoke, commands obedience to God’s Torah. In 6%, Paul a human, appears to teach a new doctrine of Grace,

Paul, according to John is difficult to understand, appears to teach a new doctrine now called “Grace”, which not only teaches against obedience to Torah, but abolishes the Torah. Yes, there are other difficult scripture in the 94%.

Why would our Father and Jesus Christ allow difficulty and uncertainty?

Why would God allow HIS WORD of instructions to mankind to be this confusing, to cause such division?
It is fact there are many, possibly up to 45,000 Christian churches, some similar, but some very different: compare the Catholic’s to the Mormon’s or to SDA or JW?

I must question, WHY would God allow this confusion? Why would God require obedience for 4000 years then change 180 degrees causing more division?

Christ taught and lived the Torah – to perfection, sinless; undisputed Fact!

Christ, stated clearly -- we are to live by every WORD of God! That can only be the OT, which Christ quoted to defeat Satan. Today the OT is mostly ignored and rejected by some.

Why would Christ and or our Father, after 4000 years and after Jesus for 3 ½ years, proclaimed the coming of the Government of God to rule earth with a ROD of IRON--- and after stating He did not come to destroy the Law, make a radical change through a single man?

And then in the last book of the NT, in the last chapter- “DO” is the - KEY word.

14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life (eternal life), and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Will the above changes minds – not likely!

But may validate why I cannot accept “Paul’s” doctrine of grace, a new doctrine by a man said to be “confusing” by one of Christ’s leading Apostles.

I live by the entire WORD, not just Paul’s.

 

[NightTwister]

The possibility of changing minds with logic and scripture is nil.

It's curious why you're here then.

 

[Cameron143]

Attempting to answer every comment makes no sense, plus the comments are all over the board, very little agreement.

The possibility of changing minds with logic and scripture is nil.

Use facts and logic and a few scriptures I will attempt to explain the difficulty and hesitation involved in accepting a 180-degree change of direction.

My KJV Bible is 1405 pages, Paul wrote 84. Paul wrote 6% of the Bible. The OT is 1157 and the rest of the NT is 164 pages, 94 %.

In 94% of the Bible, God is seeking obedience to His Torah. The last book in the OT, the last chapter of Malachi,

4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the statutes and judgments.

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

God is telling Israel to remember the Law i.e. Torah of Moses and then gives the prophecy of John the Baptist coming before Christ.

In 94 %, God inspired or spoke, commands obedience to God’s Torah. In 6%, Paul a human, appears to teach a new doctrine of Grace,

Paul, according to John is difficult to understand, appears to teach a new doctrine now called “Grace”, which not only teaches against obedience to Torah, but abolishes the Torah. Yes, there are other difficult scripture in the 94%.

Why would our Father and Jesus Christ allow difficulty and uncertainty?

Why would God allow HIS WORD of instructions to mankind to be this confusing, to cause such division?
It is fact there are many, possibly up to 45,000 Christian churches, some similar, but some very different: compare the Catholic’s to the Mormon’s or to SDA or JW?

I must question, WHY would God allow this confusion? Why would God require obedience for 4000 years then change 180 degrees causing more division?

Christ taught and lived the Torah – to perfection, sinless; undisputed Fact!

Christ, stated clearly -- we are to live by every WORD of God! That can only be the OT, which Christ quoted to defeat Satan. Today the OT is mostly ignored and rejected by some.

Why would Christ and or our Father, after 4000 years and after Jesus for 3 ½ years, proclaimed the coming of the Government of God to rule earth with a ROD of IRON--- and after stating He did not come to destroy the Law, make a radical change through a single man?

And then in the last book of the NT, in the last chapter- “DO” is the - KEY word.

14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life (eternal life), and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Will the above changes minds – not likely!

But may validate why I cannot accept “Paul’s” doctrine of grace, a new doctrine by a man said to be “confusing” by one of Christ’s leading Apostles.

I live by the entire WORD, not just Paul’s.

It's not our purpose to change hearts and minds. We are to be witnesses always ready to give an answer for the hope within us.

Godly value isn't predicated on results, but faithfulness.

 

[memberofthebride]

It's not our purpose to change hearts and minds. We are to be witnesses always ready to give an answer for the hope within us.

Godly value isn't predicated on results, but faithfulness.

So our Father is not wanting to build Godliness in those He calls to Christ?
we are just faithful to, to what?
obeying? Not sinning? what are we faithful in, if not in obeying HIM?
Christ is my Master and I faithfully do my best to obey my Master.