You should try reading the Bible, especially Galatians. And Colossians. While you are at it, read Hebrews. Oh, and Acts 15.
In Romans 8:4-14, Paul contrasted those who are born of the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse toe to submit to the Law of God.
In 1 John 3:4-10, those who are not doers of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God are not sons of God. The Law of God is a foreshadow that testifies about Christ and we should live in a way that testifies about Christ by following his example of obedience to it rather than a way that bears false witness against him. For example, Christ is righteous, so by being a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God we are testifying about who he is, but who someone claims to be his follower while being a doer of unrighteousness works, then they are bearing false witness against him.
In Romans 10:5-8, Paul referred to Deuteronomy 30 as the world of faith hat we proclaim in regard to proclaiming that the Law of God is not too difficult for us to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as something that no one can obey. Moreover, there are many examples in the Bible of people who did obey it, such as with those in Joshua 22:1-3, Luke 1:5-6, Revelation 14:12, and Revelation 22:14.
Nowhere does the Bible state that God knows that. God has not commanded anything that is not in accordance with walking in the Spirit, but rather the Law of God is His instructions for how to embody His character traits and His character traits are the fruits of the Spirit, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:2-27) and obeying His commands are the way to eternal life (Luke 10:25-28, Hebrews 5:9).
Followers of Christ should be followers of His example of obedience to the Law of God regardless of how naturally it comes to us. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked, so passages that are speaking about those who are in Christ like Romans 8 are only speaking about those who are following his example of walking in obedience to the Law of God.
You would make an excellent Pharisee. You take even God's grace and put it under the Law.
That is an incomplete sentence.
Thank you. Paul was also an excellent Pharisee (Acts 23:6) and we should be imitators of him as he is of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1).
I did not do that, but rather God putting us under His law has always been the way that He is gracious to us. 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 His 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.
Exactly, it is why write what I write, not to argue but so they can find the truth in the words of Christ, many have forgotten them or listen to a false teachers or preachers, I have learned a long time ago that only Christ can save us all, his words are eternal life.
So you believe that we should persecute Christians as Paul did? And be circumcised as Paul was? Your comment is ridiculous. Paul imitated Christ. Lord Jesus had nothing but contempt for Pharisees. I'm happy to agree with Lord Jesus on that issue. As did Paul. I suspect that him being persecuted by his former Pharisee contemporaries had a lot to do with it.
soyeong, Christ was against the pharisees, because they added to the law and made it a burden, you do not want to be one of those
We have the freedom to categorize God's 613 laws in whatever way we seems best to us and to decide which of those laws we think best first into our categories, but we should not interpret the authors of the Bible as referring to categories that we created. For example, I could categorize God's laws based on which part of the body is most commonly used to obey/disobey them, which as with the law against theft being a hand law, but just because I can do that does not establish that the authors of the Bible used the same categories or that they would agree with me that the law against theft best fits as a hand law, so if I were to interpret them as saying that the hand laws have been abolished, then I would be making the same sort of error that you are making.
In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ 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. Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22 and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). Christianity is about following what he taught, so why does the position that followers of Christ should follow his example cause Christianity to lose its meaning instead of the other way around?
How can you argue in favor of obedience to Jesus while also arguing against obeying the law that He taught to obey by word and by example? Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Exactly. Except no man except Lord Jesus has ever kept God's commandments perfectly. And if you miss even the smallest point of the law, you are guilty of breaking them all. If your basis for salvation is obeying the law, you are lost.
I did not say that. It is a misreading of 1 Corinthians 11:1 that we should persecute Christians as Paul did.
Paul did not speak against circumcision for the reasons that God commanded as if he had the authority to countermand God, but rather he only spoke against circumcision for the purpose of becoming saved/justified.
Christ set a s sinless example for us to imitate of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses and we should be imitators of Paul as he was of Christ. Moreover, that means that Christ was much more zealous for obedience to the Law of Moses than the Pharisees were and while he criticized them for not obeying it or for not obeying it correctly, he never criticized them for obeying it. For example, in Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, and in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the Law of Moses of justice, mercy, and faith, so he was not opposing their zealousness for the Law of Moses, but was calling them to have a higher level of obedience to it. While Pharisees certainly had their flaws, Christ's criticism of them did not come from a place of contempt but from a place of leading them to repentance. If you don't see the love that Jesus had for the Pharisees, then you are missing the point.
Do you think that those verses are saying that the law is not for the righteous so there righteous are free to be lawless and thereby become someone that the law of is for? Or that the law is for the lawless so that ones they repent and become righteous then they can go back to being lawless? The righteous are those on whose heart is the Law of Moses (Isaiah 51:7) and everyone who is a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of Moses is righteous even as they are righteous (1 John 3:4-7). To use an analogy, instructions for how to build a computer are not made for the experts that have built hundreds of computers even though they still act in accordance with those instructions, but rather they are made to teach those who don't know how to build computers.
We could point out the old covenant was in operation in Matt19:17 As Jesus said:
I'm not going to debate this ad infinitum S.
We can't earn our salvation even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of God because was never given aa way of earning our salvation in the first place, so that has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the law. Repentance doesn't change the fact that we have not had perfect obedience, so if we needed to have. perfect obedience, then repentance would have no value, but the fact that repentance has value demonstrates that we are not required to have perfect obedience. The fact that James 2:1-11 is encouraging them to repent from their favoritism completely undermines how you are trying to use that passage. The only reason why someone would need to have perfect obedience is if they are going to give themselves to pay for the sins of the world - the rest of us can thankfully have our sins forgiven and still be saved without having had perfect obedience.
The reason why God gave His children the Law of Moses was not so that we would have something to boast about. What Christ did for for us was spend his ministry teaching us to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and go to the cross in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses (Titus 2:14, Acts 21:20). God graciously teaching us to obey the Law of Moses is something that He is doing for us because it was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13).
While Jesus spent his ministry teaching how to live under the Mosaic Covenant by word and by example prior to establishing the New Covenant at the end, the reason why he establish the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).
Jesus notably said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, not those who are workers of lawfulness. The Hebrew word "yada" refers to intimate relationships/knowledge gained by experience such as with Genesis 4:1 where Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. God's way is the way to know (yada) Him and Jesus by experiencing embodying His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3). For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew (yada) Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In 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 (yada) 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 to know God and Jesus by walking in His way, which is His gift of eternal life.
Jesus spent his ministry teaching how to live under the Mosaic Covenant by word and by example until the establishment of the New Covenant at the end of his ministry and the reason why he established it was not in order to nullify anything he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused it to be needed in the first place, but rather it still involves following the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).
Jesus had just finished selecting his disciples and was because question about his selection in regard to why they were not fasting, so he answered their question by giving two parables about different types of disciples, which has nothing to do with the Mosaic or New Covenants.
You recognized that there is something to interact with, but you are deliberately ignoring it.
My position is that the Jerusalem Council required Gentiles to obey the Law of Moses, which is the opposite of giving them a licensee to sin. You can keeping claiming otherwise without giving any sort of justification for your claim, but that won't cause it to become true. Claiming nonsense to be an indisputable fact does not make it indisputable.
If what I'm saying were contrary to what is plainly stated, then it would be easy for you to show that I am wrong, but you deliberately avoid doing so because you are unable to do that.
