Faith or Law?

[Toknow]

I was thinking about that one day. And the Hebrews in Egypt and the bondage they were under. If you compare the US to Egypt, we are under 10X more bondage than the Hebrews ever were. I guess people don't see it?

Gosh Edward,,,I agree with you that ALL governments are attempting to put us under bondage, and in even more ways that we already are....(different topic)

But to say that we're either on the same level as the israelites in Egypt, or worse, it's quite an overstatment!

I can't really agree that we are under the same bondage as the Israelite slaves were.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Thanks for clarifying Pilgrimshope.

I have a question for you.
Did you study the Covenants?

I'm pretty familiar with about 7 of them, but I had to actually study them.
It almost sounds from your post that you gleened the Covenants just from scripture alone.
I never would have learned them just from scripture alone.

Just curious.

Yeah I base everything I believe and know on what’s found in scripture and of course prayer .

yeah i mean I’ve looked into several like the original made with Adam and Eve or Noah afterwards the two made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob the one made with Israel and then David also later ect but mostly I look at the one God promised Abraham concerning all people and nations of the earth in Jesus Christ through the gospel because I believe that’s the one I’m a part of

 

[Toknow]

Yeah I base everything I believe and know on what’s found in scripture and of course prayer .

yeah i mean I’ve looked into several like the original made with Adam and Eve or Noah afterwards the two made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob the one made with Israel and then David also later ect but mostly I look at the one God promised Abraham concerning all people and nations of the earth in Jesus Christ through the gospel because I believe that’s the one I’m a part of

I could understand this since the Abrahamic actually uses the word COVENANT.
Also the NEW...Jesus called it the New and everlasting Covenant.
Most skip the whole idea of Covenant and never see any connection.

And, yes, I do believe some actually have to be looked into to understand them.
I hope you know that each Covenant has a sign and/or a seal. (some have both).
I've found this to be important.
Abrahamic = Circumcision
New = Baptism and yet we debate whether or not baptism is necessary.

Also, there's a Covenant before the Adamic...
it's the Edenic.

And If you're a Christian, then you're part of the New Covenant...
but we are sons of Abraham by having been grafted in. (Romans).

Thanks!

 

[Toknow]

I'm sorry that happened to you. I just manually type the quote tags, but I agree I'm not sure why they don't make it easier.

It's the second time I lost everything...the first time I was able to repeat.

No one has have been required to follow every single law and not even Jesus obeyed the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period, so the fact that there are laws that we can't currently follow doesn't mean that we shouldn't be faithful to obey the laws that we can follow.

This is generally true for all of scripture.

But it was my point exactly...
today, in modern USA..we cannot follow MOST of the laws in the OT Mosaic Law.

The Apostles certainly did teach against sin and say that it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is.

Right.
One of the reasons for the LAW, was so that we could know when we sin.
Agreed.

BUT
By this I'm referring to the Moral Law and Paul was referring to the moral law too because he stated over and over again that we are not saved by following THE LAW of Moses.

Paul said we are to follow the Law of faith...in Christ, of course.

Romans 1:5
5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from[c] faith for his name’s sake.

We are to follow the obedience OF FAITH...for Jesus.
NOT the Law of Moses.

Jesus did not invent the concept of fulfilling the law, so we should seek to understand what he meant within the context of what it meant within Judaism before Jesus said that he came to fulfill it in the way that his audience would have understood him. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it and he warned against relaxing the least part of it or teaching others to relax the least part of it, so Jesus fulfilling the law should not be interpreted as meaning the same thing as abolishing it or as relaxing even the least part of it. Rather, "to fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo), so Jesus proceeded to fulfill the law throughout the rest of the chapter by correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

Yes. It certainly sounds like this.
BUT
Jesus said He did not come to ABOLISH the Law
but to fulfill it. So yes, it's importanat to know what fulfill means.








We're not going to agree as to the meaning of the word pleroo.

This is from Strong's no. 4137...pleroo

pléroó: To fill, to make full, to complete, to fulfill
Original Word: πληρόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pléroó
Pronunciation: play-ro'-o
Phonetic Spelling: (play-ro'-o)
KJV: accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply
NASB: fulfill, fulfilled, filled, made full, completed, fill, made complete
Word Origin: [from G4134 (πλήρης - full)]

1. to fully, completely fill
2. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow)
3. (figuratively) to fully supply, satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
accomplish, complete, fulfill
From pleres; to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc. -- accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.


This, coupled with theological teaching, can only mean that Jesus came to COMPLETE,,,
to SATISFY, to ACCOMPLISH, to END the Law.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17......that our righteousness must exceed that of the pharisees, who followed The Law...
what does that mean to you?

According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so again it refers to correctly obeying it as it should be, moreover, it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that Jesus did on the cross. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, so you should interpret that in the same way that you interpret fulfilling the Law of Moses.

HOW has loving my neighbor fulfilled the LAW,,,,
It DOES fulfill what Jesus taught:
LOVE GOD
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF

It fulfills what Jesus taught.
It makes what He taught COMPLETE.
This simple command puts AN END to all the other ones.

The word FULFILL retains its proper meaning.

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 of the Kingdom/Grace, and I have been trying to establish that Paul also taught the same Gospel. The Kingdom of God was the main topic that Jesus taught about and refers to the Messianic Era.

Paul absolutely taught the same as Jesus did.
Agreed.

So what does the Messianic era have to do with following THE LAW.

And I don't know that you ever defined THE LAW of Moses.

Also, if you could find those verses you had posted to me,,,I'd be happy to respond.
(the post I lost).

 

[Soyeong]

I wasn't assigning anything to you, I simply pointed out the truth of where your views would lead if they were correct. I'd be surprised if you didn't agree with me

You are not pointing out the truth of where my view would lead if were correct, but rather you are making something up and trying to assign it to me and won't list to me tell you otherwise. You want to argue that we know what is in our head, but you seem to want to take the position that you know what is in my mind and that I do not.

You asked me the following question, please do not criticise me for answering it:

The New Covenant involves God writing the Law of Moses internally on our hearts, so if the Law of Moses is not being written internally on someone's heart, then what does that imply about whether or not they are under the New Covenant?

The two options are that it implies that they are under the New Covenant or that it implies that they are not and you have given neither answer.

Bit when Paul repeatedly stated we cannot be justified/righteous by obeying the law, this was because of the moral side of the law(mainly the TC), for the rest of the law could faultlessly be obeyed

We can't earn our righteousness even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of Moses because it was never given as a way of doing tat in the first place (Romans 4:1-5), not because we fall short of faultless obedience. In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faultless obedience, but rather the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ for all who believe. The Law was Moses was never given as a way of becoming righteous, but rather it was given to describe the life of someone who is righteous as it describes the life of Christ, so it is what someone becomes a doer of when they become righteous.

The Bible never lists which laws are part of the moral law or legalistic ceremonial and never even refers to those as being subcategory of law. Rather, morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to embody God's character traits, so al of God's laws are inherently moral laws.

As for legalistic righteousness, faultless Phil3:6 NIV 1984 edition.
Many term the law given in two parts, the legalistic, or Mosaic law of rite, ritual and ceremony and the moral law, mainly of the TC. The legalistic law could faultlessly be obeyed, even by the worst of sinners(Phil3:6), and by the pharisees of Jesus day, for that law only concerned outward obedience. But the worst of sinners could not obey the TC(Rom7:7-11) Paul termed that law the letter that kills, the ministry of death and condemnation. He stated that to born again christians in the present tense

Paul notably said that he did not have a righteousness that come from the Mosaic Law. Paul notably did not specify that he was speaking about the legalistic or ceremonial law. You are free to created whatever categories you want and to decided for yourself which laws you think best fit into your categories, but you should not interpret Paul as if he had him mind a set of laws that you created. God has not given any laws that were only concerned with outwards appearance. The fact that the Law of Moses brings death and condemnation to those who refuse to submit to it is not a very good reason for someone to refuse to submit to it. In Romans 8:4-14, Paul contrasted those who are born again of 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.

 

[James456]

You are not pointing out the truth of where my view would lead if were correct, but rather you are making something up and trying to assign it to me and won't list to me tell you otherwise. You want to argue that we know what is in our head, but you seem to want to take the position that you know what is in my mind and that I do not.


The two options are that it implies that they are under the New Covenant or that it implies that they are not and you have given neither answer.


We can't earn our righteousness even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of Moses because it was never given as a way of doing tat in the first place (Romans 4:1-5), not because we fall short of faultless obedience. In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faultless obedience, but rather the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ for all who believe. The Law was Moses was never given as a way of becoming righteous, but rather it was given to describe the life of someone who is righteous as it describes the life of Christ, so it is what someone becomes a doer of when they become righteous.

The Bible never lists which laws are part of the moral law or legalistic ceremonial and never even refers to those as being subcategory of law. Rather, morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to embody God's character traits, so al of God's laws are inherently moral laws.


Paul notably said that he did not have a righteousness that come from the Mosaic Law. Paul notably did not specify that he was speaking about the legalistic or ceremonial law. You are free to created whatever categories you want and to decided for yourself which laws you think best fit into your categories, but you should not interpret Paul as if he had him mind a set of laws that you created. God has not given any laws that were only concerned with outwards appearance. The fact that the Law of Moses brings death and condemnation to those who refuse to submit to it is not a very good reason for someone to refuse to submit to it. In Romans 8:4-14, Paul contrasted those who are born again of 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.

Basically, you are just uncomfortable about plainly stating where your beliefs lead. If a righteousness person will obey the mosaic law, then they cannot be righteous if they do not. I have no intention of reading long posts of yours that seek to deflect from the obvious truth

 

[Soyeong]

It’s impossible to obey Moses and Jesus

Moses law given to Israel

“And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.”
‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭24:19-20‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭21:23-25‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The Lord Jesus contrary word in the gospel Of his kingdom

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:38-39‬ ‭KJV‬‬

In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he preceded a quote from wha 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 what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. "An eye for an eye" is still a good guidelines for judges to help ensure fair sentencing that does not escalate out of proportion of the offense, but it was a guideline that was only intended to be used by judges and was not intended to be used in person situation in order to justify taking vengeance into our own hands. In person situation we are instructed not to repay in kind (Proverbs 20:22, 24:29).

These two things are contrary or how can you obey Moses

“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭24:1-2‬ ‭KJV‬‬

and also Jesus ?

“It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:31-32‬ ‭KJV‬‬[/qoote]
Someone putting her away his wife without giving her a writ of divorcement would mean that they were still legally married, so it would prevent her from getting remarried and cause he to commit adultery, which is in perfect accordance with the OT.

it’s pretty easy to read the things Moses gave isreel to govern the land he gave then ….

“Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. …..
Deuteronomy‬ ‭5:1-2, 22-25, 27-28‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the LORD God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭12:1‬ ‭KJV‬

“And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel: these are the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which Moses spake unto the children of Israel, after they came forth out of Egypt,”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭4:44-45‬ ‭KJV

“These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭29:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Indeed, Israel was given the role of being a light to the nations.

I’m not sure how this doesn’t register to some

“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭31:31-32‬ ‭KJV‬‬

we aren’t promised the land of Old Testament isreal we’re promised much better and have a much better covenent word and much better sacrifice much better preisthood much better intercession we have the promise of the holy ghost ect

The New Covenant was only mad with the house of Judah and the house of Israel, so it is only through a Gentile becoming joined to Israel through faith in Christ that they are able to partake of the New Covenant. While there are differences between the Mosaic and New Covenants insofar as the New Covenant is based on better promises and has a superior mediator, the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33), so that is not one of the differences.

We can let Moses go And accept chrirt and the gospel but some can’t

Again, the same God who gave the Law to Moses also sent Jesus as the promised seed to bless us by turning us from our wickedness, so there is no disagreement. We do not need to let God of what God has commanded in order to follow what God has commanded.

“But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

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 is audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20) so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which Peter argued in Acts 15:6-7 that Gentiles had heard and believed, so he was agreeing with the Pharisees from among the believers. 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 Mosaic Law, which is in accordance with Acts 15:8-9 where Peter argued that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed. 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 Acts 15:10-11 where Peter argued that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so again he was agreeing with the Pharisees from among the believers. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so the topic that they were debating was not whether followers of Christ should follow what he taught, but where salvation is by circumcision that was proposed by the men from Judea in Acts 15:1 or by grace.

And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

( their message to the churches after the discussion ) forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:5-6, 24‬ ‭

Moses law isnt Christian doctrine unless you Look for the prophetic element about Jesus …..

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 by trying to use it to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow.

 

[James456]

You are not pointing out the truth of where my view would lead if were correct, but rather you are making something up and trying to assign it to me and won't list to me tell you otherwise. You want to argue that we know what is in our head, but you seem to want to take the position that you know what is in my mind and that I do not.


The two options are that it implies that they are under the New Covenant or that it implies that they are not and you have given neither answer.


We can't earn our righteousness even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of Moses because it was never given as a way of doing tat in the first place (Romans 4:1-5), not because we fall short of faultless obedience. In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faultless obedience, but rather the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ for all who believe. The Law was Moses was never given as a way of becoming righteous, but rather it was given to describe the life of someone who is righteous as it describes the life of Christ, so it is what someone becomes a doer of when they become righteous.

The Bible never lists which laws are part of the moral law or legalistic ceremonial and never even refers to those as being subcategory of law. Rather, morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to embody God's character traits, so al of God's laws are inherently moral laws.


Paul notably said that he did not have a righteousness that come from the Mosaic Law. Paul notably did not specify that he was speaking about the legalistic or ceremonial law. You are free to created whatever categories you want and to decided for yourself which laws you think best fit into your categories, but you should not interpret Paul as if he had him mind a set of laws that you created. God has not given any laws that were only concerned with outwards appearance. The fact that the Law of Moses brings death and condemnation to those who refuse to submit to it is not a very good reason for someone to refuse to submit to it. In Romans 8:4-14, Paul contrasted those who are born again of 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.

Your words:

In Romans 2:13-15, Paul said that only the doers of the Law of Moses will be justified


Well according to your own statement nearly everyone on this website cannot be in a justified state, or do you not really mean what you write?

If you are not justified you Are not saved you are not under the new covenant!

 

[Soyeong]

Basically, you are just uncomfortable about plainly stating where your beliefs lead. If a righteousness person will obey the mosaic law, then they cannot be righteous if they do not. I have no intention of reading long posts of yours that seek to deflect from the obvious truth

Basically, you are not comfortable with listening to me tell you what I do and do not believe and would rather assign beliefs to me that you've made up than interact with what I've actually said. I gave you question that only has two possible answers, which you have refused to answer. You've written several posts since I've replied to you last, so me going into details to explain why you are wrong is embracing the obvious truth.

The only way to attain a character trait is through faith, but what it means to have a character trait is to be a doer of works that embody that trait. So for example the only way for someone to become courageous is through faith, but it would be contradictory for someone to be courageous while choosing to not be a doer of courageous works. If someone is not a doer of compassionate works, then they can't also be compassionate, and the same is true for righteousness and every other character trait. For someone to be righteous means that they are a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of Moses (1 John 3:4-7).

 

[James456]

Basically, you are not comfortable with listening to me tell you what I do and do not believe and would rather assign beliefs to me that you've made up than interact with what I've actually said. I gave you question that only has two possible answers, which you have refused to answer. You've written several posts since I've replied to you last, so me going into details to explain why you are wrong is embracing the obvious truth.

The only way to attain a character trait is through faith, but what it means to have a character trait is to be a doer of works that embody that trait. So for example the only way for someone to become courageous is through faith, but it would be contradictory for someone to be courageous while choosing to not be a doer of courageous works. If someone is not a doer of compassionate works, then they can't also be compassionate, and the same is true for righteousness and every other character trait. For someone to be righteous means that they are a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of Moses (1 John 3:4-7).

Your words:

In Romans 2:13-15, Paul said that only the doers of the Law of Moses will be justified


Well according to your own statement nearly everyone on this website cannot be in a justified state, or do you not really mean what you write?

If you are not justified you Are not saved you are not under the new covenant!

 

[Soyeong]

Your words:

In Romans 2:13-15, Paul said that only the doers of the Law of Moses will be justified


Well according to your own statement nearly everyone on this website cannot be in a justified state, or do you not really mean what you write?

If you are not justified you Are not saved you are not under the new covenant!

That again is not according to my statement, so please interact with what I said rather than making things up. I mean what I write, but not what you make up. Do you think that you know what is in my head while I do not?

 

[James456]

That again is not according to my statement,

That is copied word for word from your post 310

 

[Soyeong]

Thanks for clarifying Pilgrimshope.

I have a question for you.
Did you study the Covenants?

I'm pretty familiar with about 7 of them, but I had to actually study them.
It almost sounds from your post that you gleened the Covenants just from scripture alone.
I never would have learned them just from scripture alone.

Just curious.

New covenants do not nullify the promises of old covenants that have already been ratified, so all of God's covenants are eternally and cumulatively valid. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it. So the New Covenant still involves following the Law of Moses (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6). 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, which means that if the New Covenant involved doing something completely different that were not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).

 

[Soyeong]

That is copied word for word from your post 310

What you quoted from my post is my position, but what you made up as being according to my position and tried to assign to me is not.

 

[James456]

What you quoted from my post is my position, but what you made up as being according to my position and tried to assign to me is not.

Ridiculous. If only those who obey the law of Moses are justified, does that mean those who do not obey the law of Moses can also be justified?

 

[Soyeong]

We are under the Law of Christ...
and his burden is light.

Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so do you agree? Why grounds do you have for thinking that the Law of Christ is not in perfect accordance with every word that has come from the mouth of God?

Matthew 11:28-30
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

The Pharisees put burdens on the Jews by making them follow so many laws that it was practically impossible.

Jesus lifted them, and us, from those burdens and has made following the TC easy because of our love for Christ.

Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses and in Matthew 11:28-30, he was inviting people to come to him for rest and to learn from him, not inviting people to come for him for rest instead of learning from his example. Moreover, by Jesus saying that we would find rest for our souls, he was referencing Jeremiah 6:16-19 where the Law of Moses is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls, but they didn't want to walk in it. There is a difference between what God has commanded and what a Pharisee has added.

 

[Soyeong]

Ridiculous. If only those who obey the law of Moses are justified, does that mean those who do not obey the law of Moses can also be justified?

Yes, the fact that only the doers of the Law of Moses will be justified mean that those who are not doers of it will not be justified. Is there anyone in this site who lives in complete disobedience to everything in the Law of Moses? No. For example, the greatest two commandments of the Law of Moses are to love God and our neighbor and the Christians on this site have the goal of living in obedience commandments. Even if someone just thinks that Christians should obey the laws of Moses that are repeated in the NT, then that is still a large portion of them. Do I make any sort of judgement about whether or not someone who is a doer of only part of the Law of Moses will be justified? No.

 

[James456]

Yes, the fact that only the doers of the Law of Moses will be justified mean that those who are not doers of it will not be justified. Is there anyone in this site who lives in complete disobedience to everything in the Law of Moses? No. For example, the greatest two commandments of the Law of Moses are to love God and our neighbor and the Christians on this site have the goal of living in obedience commandments. Even if someone just thinks that Christians should obey the laws of Moses that are repeated in the NT, then that is still a large portion of them. Do I make any sort of judgement about whether or not someone who is a doer of only part of the Law of Moses will be justified? No.

So if you only in part obey the law of moses you can be justified? Are you antinomian?
Before you said only doers of the law of Moses will be justified.
So people can pretty much live a life of sin and still attain to Heaven? You must be antinomian, unless you are trying to justify your beliefs, whilst not wishing to tell people on this website they are unsaved.
Either way, you do not come across to me as someone with coherent views

 

[Soyeong]

So if you only in part obey the law of moses you can be justified?

Again, I do not make that judgment. If someone is a doer of everything in the Law of Moses except one detail, then is that sufficient to prevent them from being justified? I pray that that is not the case, but again I am not the judge of that.

Are you antinomian?

No.

Before you said only doers of the law of Moses will be justified.

I stand by that.

So people can pretty much live a life of sin and still attain to Heaven? You must be antinomian, unless you are trying to justify your beliefs, whilst not wishing to tell people on this website they are unsaved.

I definitely did not say that.

Either way, you do not come across to me as someone with coherent views

I welcome you to interact with what I've said rather than trying to assign incoherent views to me.

 

[James456]

Again, I do not make that judgment. If someone is a doer of everything in the Law of Moses except one detail, then is that sufficient to prevent them from being justified? I pray that that is not the case, but again I am not the judge of that.


No.


I stand by that.


I definitely did not say that.


I welcome you to interact with what I've said rather than trying to assign incoherent views to me.

OK, you stand by only the doers of the law of Moses will be justified.
Well I have no inclination, no desire to follow the law of moses in respect of the law of rite, ritual and ceremony, and I have no consciousness of sin whatsoever in not doing so. And I am sure I am in the vast majority of people on this website concerning that