Search results

Acts 15 makes it clear that those judaizers said the believing gentiles (already justified) had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved.

No it's not. Re-read what I wrote earlier. It is a very small part of the law of Moses. There were many things one had to do besides just that one commandment. It's a new commandment that was an old commandment that has become the law of liberty, the law of the new covenant.

We are not to uphold the law of Moses. We are to uphold Christ.

You keep confusing commandments with law. That commandment is not the law of Moses even though it is a very small part of it.

What both of you two appear to be promoting hasn't worked very well. Exalting the 10 commandments is what churches have done in the US for many decades. What we're seeing now with the lawless grace doctrines is an over-reaction to the churches' hypocrisy of promoting the 10 commandments while...

John called it a new commandment.

That's totally incorrect. The law of Moses was more than that one commandment. You could keep that one commandment perfectly and still be put to death under the law of Moses for violating other things, e.g., sabbaths. So they are obviously not the same laws.

That's incorrect. The gentiles were already justified by faith. The pharisees said they had to observe the law of Moses to be saved. The Jerusalem council said they were to do no such thing. ... thou thyself [Paul] also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which...

I actually looked at it in the Greek and went a bit deeper than just face value. There's a contradiction there (on the surface) that you are unable to answer.

You are under the influence of a spirit that makes you misspell words and use bad syntax.

We differentiate by knowing that one is a commandment in law that has passed away while the other is law that remains. It's like having a body of law that Congress abolishes, yet extracts one things from it to make a new law. We don't concern ourselves with the old law except maybe for...

I disagree that we even keep the law of Moses. We keep the law of Christ, which satisfies the law of Moses.

I disagree with your interpretation of Romans 3:31 and it's application to the law of Moses. I've explained this to you before.

The difference between now and then is that then the law was a tutor that could discipline its students, and now the law is no longer a tutor that can discipline because it has led us to Christ, and we are no longer under a tutor.

Yes it's possible to obey the gospel because it is Jesus' and his apostles' words. Ditto to GOD's grace. But we don't obey grace because it is not a law. It is an aspect of GOD's nature.

When you get ready to say something apart from wagging the finger in a disapproving tone and trying to make points by asking questions, I'll be here.

We don't obey grace. We obey GOD by believing and doing Jesus' and his apostles words.

Call it what you will, that was the law of the old covenant, which the believing pharisees were trying to bring believing gentiles under.

It's fine and wonderful to defend the law of Moses. Do you understand the difference between walking by faith and walking by the letter?

Keeping the law of Moses is living in it and doing it. All of it. Circumcision was only one commandment in the law.