PDA

View Full Version : Are there consequences for disobeying God's Law?



LookingUp
Dec 23rd 2012, 07:15 PM
I've been told by a member of this board that absolutely no one on this board believes there are any consequences for disobedience. This is not a pole about what the consequences may or may not look like but simply if there are consequences or not. Feel free to post Scripture in support of your answer.

LookingUp
Dec 23rd 2012, 07:37 PM
“For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man” (Romans 7:22).

“I myself with my mind am serving the law of God” (Romans 7:25).

“The mind set on the flesh…does not subject itself to the law of God” (Romans 8:7).

“…though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21).

“But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken” (Matthew 12:36).

“For the son of man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels and will then repay every man according to his deeds” (Matthew 16:27).

“I am he who searches hearts and minds and I will repay each of you according to your deeds” (Rev. 2:23).

“God will give to each according to what he has done” (Romans 2:6).

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10).

“Each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:13-15)

Walls
Dec 23rd 2012, 09:42 PM
I've been told by a member of this board that absolutely no one on this board believes there are any consequences for disobedience. This is not a pole about what the consequences may or may not look like but simply if there are consequences or not. Feel free to post Scripture in support of your answer.

The Poll is a bit of a curved ball. In the Poll and Title you speak of "God's Law". By multiple scriptures, God's Law is the Law of Moses (Ex.16:28 etc.). In your preamble you speak generally of "disobedience". The Christian is not subject to the Law of Moses, but very subject to the circa 2'400 commands of the New Testament, with dire consequences for disobeying them (1st Cor.6:9-10; Gal.5:19-21; Eph.5:5-7).

LookingUp
Dec 23rd 2012, 10:09 PM
The Poll is a bit of a curved ball. In the Poll and Title you speak of "God's Law". By multiple scriptures, God's Law is the Law of Moses (Ex.16:28 etc.). If God’s Law is the Law of Moses, what is the “law of God” Paul speaks of (Romans 7:22, 25; 8:7; 1 Cor. 9:21)?


In your preamble you speak generally of "disobedience". The Christian is not subject to the Law of Moses,Can you provide Scripture that says Jewish Christians should not obey the Law of Moses? We see in Acts that the Jerusalem Jews continued obeying the Law of Moses.


but very subject to the circa 2'400 commands of the New Testament, with dire consequences for disobeying them (1st Cor.6:9-10; Gal.5:19-21; Eph.5:5-7).Thank you for the Scripture. Would you say that Christians are invited to live at a higher standard than the Law of Moses calls for?

Walls
Dec 23rd 2012, 11:09 PM
If God’s Law is the Law of Moses, what is the “law of God” Paul speaks of (Romans 7:22, 25; 8:7; 1 Cor. 9:21)?


In Romans Chapter 7 Paul speaks of the inability of any man to keep the Laws of God because of the law of sin and death in his members.

In 1st Corinthians Chapter 9 Paul says that for the sake of the Gospel he will adapt to the condition of the hearer, but without subjecting himself to the Law. Paul did this in Acts 16:1-5 when he circumcised Timothy. The circumcision of Timothy had no value before God (Gal.5:5, 6:15). It was purely a maneuver to get the Jews to take him seriously.


Can you provide Scripture that says Jewish Christians should not obey the Law of Moses? We see in Acts that the Jerusalem Jews continued obeying the Law of Moses.

OK. First, while there might be a Christian holding a Jewish passport, there is no such thing as a Christian Jew in the Church (Gal.3:28; Col.3:11). The Church, or the New Man, is constituted from the "twain" (the nations, and the nation of Israel). In Ephesians 2:14-15 it is, "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

Secondly, the practice of the First Church in Jerusalem to continue in the Law of Moses was, by the statement of the Apostles who were taught by Jesus Himself, declared erroneous (Acts.15:6-21; Gal.5:4). It was continued until our Lord allowed the armies of Titus to destroy the seat of Jewdom in 70 AD. The writings of Paul are comprehensive in this matter. But I will grant that the power of the Jewish tradition was very strong among Jewish converts. It led two pillars of the Church into difficulties. Peter into sin (Gal.2:11-16), and Paul fell too in that he went back to Jerusalem against a twofold witness of accredited prophets, and his ministry of building Churches was over (Act.21:4, 8-11).


Thank you for the Scripture. Would you say that Christians are invited to live at a higher standard than the Law of Moses calls for?

Much higher. The requirements of a New Testament believer are based on the availability of the Holy Spirit dwelling in his/her spirit, with all the resources of Christ at his/her disposal. Example;

To the Jew, "love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal.5:4)
To the Christian "love... as I (Jesus) have loved you" (Jn.13:34, 15:12)


"Phew!"


The whole so-called Sermon on the Mount addresses those whose God is "your Father." "Your Father in heaven" assumes the rebirth. God cannot be "your Father" if you were not born from Him.

Hope this helps.

Solitude
Dec 23rd 2012, 11:10 PM
Yes, I do believe that there are consequences for disobedience to God's laws and commands.

I believe that the new covenant is that the law will be written upon our hearts and in our minds. Through Christ, the law can be fulfilled in our lives, so that it is no longer just outwardly, but also from the heart as well. :)
Hebrews 8:9-11
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Diggindeeper
Dec 24th 2012, 05:53 AM
I've been told by a member of this board that absolutely no one on this board believes there are any consequences for disobedience. This is not a pole about what the consequences may or may not look like but simply if there are consequences or not. Feel free to post Scripture in support of your answer.

Whoever told you that does not know what they are talking about and they apparently don't know the scriptures either...............

LookingUp
Dec 24th 2012, 07:01 AM
In Romans Chapter 7 Paul speaks of the inability of any man to keep the Laws of God because of the law of sin and death in his members.So, now it’s okay to break God’s Law/commandments? Paul refers to the inability of the Law and then specifies that the Law’s inability actually stems from the inability of the flesh, not from any defect in the Law.

And that didn’t answer my question which was, “If God’s Law is the Law of Moses, what is the “law of God” Paul speaks of (Romans 7:22, 25; 8:7; 1 Cor. 9:21)?” Although Paul spoke of the inability of the flesh, these Scriptures show that he continued to subject himself to the Law of God:

“For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man” (Romans 7:22).

“I myself with my mind am serving the law of God” (Romans 7:25).

“The mind set on the flesh…does not subject itself to the law of God” (Romans 8:7).

“…though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21).


In 1st Corinthians Chapter 9 Paul says that for the sake of the Gospel he will adapt to the condition of the hearer, but without subjecting himself to the Law.In the above Scriptures, Paul confirms that he was subject to the Law of God, so you must be mistaken in your interpretation.

“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law” (1 Cor. 9:20). The above Scriptures say that Paul was SUBJECT to the Law of God. Therefore, “under the Law” and “subject to the Law” must be two very different things.

“All who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law” (Rom. 2:12).
“But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the Law” (Gal. 3:23).
“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law” (Gal. 5:18).
“You have been severed from Christ you who are seeking to be justified by Law” (Gal. 5:4).

When Paul says he became like those “under the Law” though not being “under the Law,” it means that although he knew that he was not judged by the Law, that he was not in custody under the Law, that he was not seeking to be justified by the Law, he became as though he were for the sake of those still in that mindset. It didn’t mean he wasn’t subject to the Law. It can’t, because he testifies that he was subject to the Law (Romans 7:22, 25; 8:7; 1 Cor. 9:21).

God’s people weren’t redeemed from the Law, they were redeemed from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13). “For all who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse” (Gal. 3:10).

The Law was never a curse, but those who continued to break God’s Law would be cursed. So, those who continue to rely on their own ability to keep the Law (Gal. 3:10; 5:4) are under a curse. Paul was not “under the Law” in that sense, but he continued to subject himself to God’s holy Law because it is holy and good and righteous (Rom. 7:12).


Paul did this in Acts 16:1-5 when he circumcised Timothy. The circumcision of Timothy had no value before God (Gal.5:5, 6:15). It was purely a maneuver to get the Jews to take him seriously.Yes, but not because Paul wasn’t subject to the Law. The Jews for whom Paul did this were still in the mindset that one cannot be justified before God unless circumcised. Paul didn’t want to alienate them, so he “became a slave to them” for the sake of the Gospel and had Timothy circumcised.

Paul had Timothy circumcised yet Timothy was not “severed from Christ,” because his circumcision had nothing to do with seeking to be justified by the Law (Gal 5:4). This alone should prove that circumcision has value.

Circumcision has value, but it means nothing in terms of justification (Gal. 5:6). Does circumcision have value? Paul says it does. Paul says the benefit of circumcision is great in every aspect. “What is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every aspect” (Romans 3:1-2).


OK. First, while there might be a Christian holding a Jewish passport, there is no such thing as a Christian Jew in the Church (Gal.3:28; Col.3:11)…Are there males in the church? Are there females in the church?

You’ve given Scripture which demonstrates that we all come to God on the same terms: faith in God through Christ Jesus. Males continue to males. Females continue to be females. Jews continue to be Jews. And Gentiles continue to be Gentiles. But nothing inherent any male, female, Jew or Gentile gives him/her unique access to God.


Secondly, the practice of the First Church in Jerusalem to continue in the Law of Moses was, by the statement of the Apostles who were taught by Jesus Himself, declared erroneous (Acts.15:6-21; Gal.5:4). Erroneous? There’s nothing in the text in Acts that says following the Law of Moses is erroneous. Paste the text here if you think it is so. Galatians 5:4 doesn’t say that following the Law of Moses is erroneous, it says that if you seek to be justified by the Law of Moses you have been severed from Christ.


…and Paul fell too in that he went back to Jerusalem against a twofold witness of accredited prophets, and his ministry of building Churches was over (Act.21:4, 8-11).Paul wasn’t in danger of Peter, James and the rest of the Jerusalem believers, so what are you talking about?

Paul was in danger of the Jews who had rejected Christ and didn’t like that he was proclaiming salvation to Gentiles outside of becoming proselytes. Paul’s defense before the Jews was going just fine until he uttered these words, “And He said to me, ‘Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’” Luke reports, “They listened to him up to this statement and then they raised their voices and said, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!’” (Acts 22:21-22).

Raybob
Dec 24th 2012, 08:30 AM
Jesus gave us two commandments that cover all the law: love God, and love thy neighbor. It would be breaking God's law to not forgive someone. I know there is a consequence for not forgiving someone.

Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Walls
Dec 24th 2012, 04:35 PM
So, now it’s okay to break God’s Law/commandments? Paul refers to the inability of the Law and then specifies that the Law’s inability actually stems from the inability of the flesh, not from any defect in the Law.

And that didn’t answer my question which was, “If God’s Law is the Law of Moses, what is the “law of God” Paul speaks of (Romans 7:22, 25; 8:7; 1 Cor. 9:21)?” Although Paul spoke of the inability of the flesh, these Scriptures show that he continued to subject himself to the Law of God:

“For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man” (Romans 7:22).

“I myself with my mind am serving the law of God” (Romans 7:25).

“The mind set on the flesh…does not subject itself to the law of God” (Romans 8:7).

“…though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21).

In the above Scriptures, Paul confirms that he was subject to the Law of God, so you must be mistaken in your interpretation.

“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law” (1 Cor. 9:20). The above Scriptures say that Paul was SUBJECT to the Law of God. Therefore, “under the Law” and “subject to the Law” must be two very different things.

“All who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law” (Rom. 2:12).
“But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the Law” (Gal. 3:23).
“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law” (Gal. 5:18).
“You have been severed from Christ you who are seeking to be justified by Law” (Gal. 5:4).

When Paul says he became like those “under the Law” though not being “under the Law,” it means that although he knew that he was not judged by the Law, that he was not in custody under the Law, that he was not seeking to be justified by the Law, he became as though he were for the sake of those still in that mindset. It didn’t mean he wasn’t subject to the Law. It can’t, because he testifies that he was subject to the Law (Romans 7:22, 25; 8:7; 1 Cor. 9:21).

God’s people weren’t redeemed from the Law, they were redeemed from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13). “For all who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse” (Gal. 3:10).

The Law was never a curse, but those who continued to break God’s Law would be cursed. So, those who continue to rely on their own ability to keep the Law (Gal. 3:10; 5:4) are under a curse. Paul was not “under the Law” in that sense, but he continued to subject himself to God’s holy Law because it is holy and good and righteous (Rom. 7:12).

Yes, but not because Paul wasn’t subject to the Law. The Jews for whom Paul did this were still in the mindset that one cannot be justified before God unless circumcised. Paul didn’t want to alienate them, so he “became a slave to them” for the sake of the Gospel and had Timothy circumcised.

Paul had Timothy circumcised yet Timothy was not “severed from Christ,” because his circumcision had nothing to do with seeking to be justified by the Law (Gal 5:4). This alone should prove that circumcision has value.

Circumcision has value, but it means nothing in terms of justification (Gal. 5:6). Does circumcision have value? Paul says it does. Paul says the benefit of circumcision is great in every aspect. “What is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every aspect” (Romans 3:1-2).

Are there males in the church? Are there females in the church?

You’ve given Scripture which demonstrates that we all come to God on the same terms: faith in God through Christ Jesus. Males continue to males. Females continue to be females. Jews continue to be Jews. And Gentiles continue to be Gentiles. But nothing inherent any male, female, Jew or Gentile gives him/her unique access to God.

Erroneous? There’s nothing in the text in Acts that says following the Law of Moses is erroneous. Paste the text here if you think it is so. Galatians 5:4 doesn’t say that following the Law of Moses is erroneous, it says that if you seek to be justified by the Law of Moses you have been severed from Christ.

Paul wasn’t in danger of Peter, James and the rest of the Jerusalem believers, so what are you talking about?

Paul was in danger of the Jews who had rejected Christ and didn’t like that he was proclaiming salvation to Gentiles outside of becoming proselytes. Paul’s defense before the Jews was going just fine until he uttered these words, “And He said to me, ‘Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’” Luke reports, “They listened to him up to this statement and then they raised their voices and said, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!’” (Acts 22:21-22).

OK my brother. I could approach this two ways. I can enter into discussion point for point and we would go back and forth until an answer will fill a book. If you think that Romans Chapter 7 is a call to Christians to keep the Law, despite the context of those verses, and the context of Romans, and all the other scriptures to the contrary, in Romans, and in the rest of the New Testament, be my guest. Just remember that you must go down to Jerusalem three times a year with the tithe of your produce from the Good Land wrapped up in your hand. Remember to kill the Passover Lamb and not to touch your wife if she has an issue of blood for she is unclean. Remember too to bring your sin and trespass offerings to the Levite that is within your gate, and make sure that they have no blemishes. Remember too the that if you break even one of the 620 odd Laws you are cursed. And worst of all, remember that you have made the death of Christ of no effect and are fallen from grace.

And then, when you have kept the Law perfectly as Jesus did, remember that you are still unjustified in God's sight (Rom.3:20, Gal.2:16).

Or, I could advise you to read those verses you have given within their contexts, from the contexts of the books they are in, and from the context of the whole New Testament. I myself will not subject myself to one jot or tittle of the Law seeing as it has been nailed to the cross with Christ. I myself would never demean such a great thing as the death of our Lord by making it of no effect. If you are still intent on keeping one little Law, know that the following apply to you:

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,

and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law;
ye are fallen from grace"

(Gal.5:1-4).

Finally, it might pay to be precise with God's Word. It is a matter of life and death. Below is what you wrote and below that what God wrote. Spot the difference....?


Lookingup says;
The Law was never a curse, but those who continued to break God’s Law would be cursed. So, those who continue to rely on their own ability to keep the Law (Gal. 3:10; 5:4) are under a curse. Paul was not “under the Law” in that sense, but he continued to subject himself to God’s holy Law because it is holy and good and righteous (Rom. 7:12).


God says;
"For 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" (Gal.3:10



There is nothing in Galatians 3:10 and 5:4 that alludes to your ability
There is nothing in Galatians 3:10 and 5:4 that alludes to your reliance on your ability
There is nothing in Galatians 3:10 and 5:4 that speaks of "continue to break God's Law." The first Law broken breaks the whole Law and you have overthrown the Covenant of Sinai. You are fully a Law-breaker and a Covenant-breaker. When Moses descends from the Mount and is met by just two sins, he breaks both Tables of Law, or the whole Law.
It is true that that Law was never a curse. But who said it was?
It is true that the Law is not a curse, but cursed are you if you continue in it and break just one of its smallest ordinances.
Paul was either under the Law or not. There is no middle ground. God says that if you are of the Law you are cursed, and if you are of the Law you must keep the whole Law.

LookingUp
Dec 24th 2012, 07:37 PM
OK my brother. I could approach this two ways. I can enter into discussion point for point and we would go back and forth until an answer will fill a book.Sorry, but that sounds like a cop out.


If you think that Romans Chapter 7 is a call to Christians to keep the Law,…I didn’t say that. But Peter, James and all the Jerusalem Jews continued to keep the Law and no one seemed too upset about that. They kept on circumcising their babies and following the Mosaic Law. Hmm…


and all the other scriptures to the contrary,Waiting…


…And worst of all, remember that you have made the death of Christ of no effect and are fallen from grace…

I myself would never demean such a great thing…

if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing…

every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Poor Timothy, then, eh?


Finally, it might pay to be precise with God's Word. It is a matter of life and death.As you will see below, you may want to heed your own words.


Below is what you wrote and below that what God wrote. Spot the difference....?No, there is no difference. Below is what I wrote and below that what God wrote. Spot how wrong you are?

I said:
“The Law was never a curse, but those who continued to break God’s Law would be cursed. So, those who continue to rely on their own ability to keep the Law (Gal. 3:10; 5:4) are under a curse. Paul was not “under the Law” in that sense, but he continued to subject himself to God’s holy Law because it is holy and good and righteous (Rom. 7:12).”

God said:

All those who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse, because it is written, #ibEveryone is cursed who does not keep on doing all the things that have been written in the Law scroll#ie. CEB

All those who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse, because it is written, #ibEveryone is cursed who does not keep on doing all the things that have been written in the Law scroll#ie. CEBA

For all who [rely on] the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law. CSB

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." ESV

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law." NRS

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law." NRSA

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." RSV

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." RSVA


There is nothing in Galatians 3:10 and 5:4 that alludes to your reliance on your abilityThink again. FOR ALL WHO RELY ON WORKS ARE UNDER A CURSE.

Gal. 5:4
You have been severed from Christ you who are SEEKING TO BE JUSTIFIED by Law

Walls
Dec 24th 2012, 09:37 PM
Sorry, but that sounds like a cop out.

That is a strange accusation from one who ignored the following quotes of mine;

"OK. First, while there might be a Christian holding a Jewish passport, there is no such thing as a Christian Jew in the Church (Gal.3:28; Col.3:11). The Church, or the New Man, is constituted from the "twain" (the nations, and the nation of Israel). In Ephesians 2:14-15 it is, "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

And again;

"OK my brother. I could approach this two ways. I can enter into discussion point for point and we would go back and forth until an answer will fill a book. If you think that Romans Chapter 7 is a call to Christians to keep the Law, despite the context of those verses, and the context of Romans, and all the other scriptures to the contrary, in Romans, and in the rest of the New Testament, be my guest. Just remember that you must go down to Jerusalem three times a year with the tithe of your produce from the Good Land wrapped up in your hand. Remember to kill the Passover Lamb and not to touch your wife if she has an issue of blood for she is unclean. Remember too to bring your sin and trespass offerings to the Levite that is within your gate, and make sure that they have no blemishes. Remember too the that if you break even one of the 620 odd Laws you are cursed. And worst of all, remember that you have made the death of Christ of no effect and are fallen from grace."


I didn’t say that. But Peter, James and all the Jerusalem Jews continued to keep the Law and no one seemed too upset about that. They kept on circumcising their babies and following the Mosaic Law. Hmm…

We obviously have a different approach to the tone of Galatians. It is noteworthy that a New Testament Christian, who is an ambassador of reconciliation (2nd Cor.5:18-19) would desire that someone be "cut off" (Gal.5:12). I would term that "quite upset."


Waiting…

Ac 13:39 "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Ac 15:24 "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:"

Ro 3:20 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

Ro 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Ro 4:14 "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:"

Ro 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

Ro 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Ro 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Gal 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Gal 3:2 "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

Gal 3:5 "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

Gal 3:10 "For 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."

Gal 3:11 "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

Gal 3:13 "Christ 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:"

Gal 3:18 "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise."

Gal 3:19 "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

Gal 5:4 "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

Gal 5:18 "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

Eph 2:15 "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

Php 3:9 "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:"

Tit 3:9 "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."

Heb 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

Heb 7:16 "Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life."

Heb 7:19 "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God."

Heb 10:1 "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

Heb 10:8 "Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;"

Jas 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

The question that now springs to mind is; If you knew all these verses and never addressed them in your posting, is your motive pure?


Poor Timothy, then, eh?

The end of the matter of Timothy's circumcision was, "And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily." (Acts 16:5). But you did not address the reason I gave for this circumcision. It was not to fulfill the Law. What say you?


As you will see below, you may want to heed your own words.

No, there is no difference. Below is what I wrote and below that what God wrote. Spot how wrong you are?

I said:
“The Law was never a curse, but those who continued to break God’s Law would be cursed. So, those who continue to rely on their own ability to keep the Law (Gal. 3:10; 5:4) are under a curse. Paul was not “under the Law” in that sense, but he continued to subject himself to God’s holy Law because it is holy and good and righteous (Rom. 7:12).”

God said:

All those who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse, because it is written, #ibEveryone is cursed who does not keep on doing all the things that have been written in the Law scroll#ie. CEB...... etc.

Even if we concede to using non-literal translation, "to rely on their own ability", is not the same as, "who rely on the works". If English is not your mother tongue, and you need proof, I'm sure some of the posters will confirm what I say.

But well has Paul said in Titus 3:9 "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." As I said in my previous post, each man is responsible for himself and also what he teaches. You keep the Law of Moses and I will flee it. You teach other men on this Forum to keep it, I teach other men that it is annulled, over, past, nailed to the cross, abolished. May the Great Judge judge each of us on that great and fateful day on what we taught and what we did.

LookingUp
Dec 25th 2012, 12:09 AM
That is a strange accusation from one who ignored the following quotes of mine;Seriously? This shows you didn’t carefully read through my previous post. I specifically addressed these. Read post #8 again and you will see.


We obviously have a different approach to the tone of Galatians. It is noteworthy that a New Testament Christian, who is an ambassador of reconciliation (2nd Cor.5:18-19) would desire that someone be "cut off" (Gal.5:12). I would term that "quite upset."Different approach, indeed. I’ve never met a Christian who thought Peter, James and the entire Jerusalem church were “cut off.”


Ac 13:39 "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." Where does this Scripture say that Peter and James should have stopped following the customs of Moses?


Ac 15:24 "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:" This is for Gentiles. “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19). Where does this Scripture say that the Jerusalem Jews should stop following Moses?


Ro 3:20 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Where does this Scripture say that the Jerusalem Jews should stop following Moses?


Ro 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Where does this Scripture say that the Jerusalem Jews should stop following Moses?


Ro 4:14 "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:" Where does this Scripture say that the Jerusalem Jews should stop following Moses?


Ro 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."
Ro 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." This is about jurisdiction (Romans 7:1). The curse has been lifted and can no longer condemn. The Jerusalem Jews freely obeyed the Law of Moses without fear of the curses that follow those who are unable to keep the Law without fail.


Ro 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." End of the law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. It doesn’t say it’s the end of the law.


Gal 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Where does this Scripture say that the Jerusalem Jews should stop following Moses?


Gal 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." Where does this Scripture say that the Jerusalem Jews should stop following Moses?


Gal 3:2 "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"
Gal 3:5 "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" Jews were trying to get Gentiles to circumcise themselves to be accepted by God. Paul said this wasn’t necessary. Again, absolutely nothing here about the Jews needing to reverse their circumcision (i.e. discard Mosaic Law). On the contrary, Paul says, “Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised” (1 Cor. 7:18). Circumcision is nothing in terms of justification (Gal. 5:4, 6). But circumcision is not without value. “What is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect” (Romans 3:1-2).


Gal 3:10 "For 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." Right. If you rely on the Law for justification, you’re under a curse.


Gal 3:11 "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." Nothing here about discarding Moses.


Gal 3:13 "Christ 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:" Yep, no more curses. Doesn’t say “no more law.”


Gal 3:18 "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise."
Gal 3:19 "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." The Sinai Covenant (“the Law”) and what was known as “the Law” in total (including curses) is no longer. But God always intended to write His Law on the hearts of His people. That’s what the new covenant is about (I can give Scripture if you’re unfamiliar with this). What’s not “in effect” are the curses. What is “in effect” are the commandments of God.


Gal 5:4 "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."Those who want to be “justified by the law” have fallen from grace.


Gal 5:18 "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." Yep. Peter, James and all the Jerusalem Jews continued to follow the Law. Not because they were “under the Law” but because they were “subject to the Law.” We’re all subject to God’s commands.


Eph 2:15 "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;" Yep, the ENMITY.


Php 3:9 "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:"

Tit 3:9 "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."

Heb 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

Heb 7:16 "Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life."

Heb 7:19 "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God."

Heb 10:1 "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

Heb 10:8 "Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;"

Jas 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." I’m in a hurry, so I’m gonna have to sum this up quickly. Bottom line, Jews were never asked to stop obeying the Law of Moses. Gentiles were NEVER asked to follow the Law of Moses. They were asked to fear God and obey all that relates to Gentiles.


The question that now springs to mind is; If you knew all these verses and never addressed them in your posting, is your motive pure?I don’t appreciate what you’re insinuating. You’ve thrown up a bunch of Scripture, none of which says that Jews must stop obeying the Law of Moses.


The end of the matter of Timothy's circumcision was, "And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily." (Acts 16:5). But you did not address the reason I gave for this circumcision. It was not to fulfill the Law. What say you?The point is, anyone can continue in the Law of Moses for reasons other than desiring to be justified by it.


Even if we concede to using non-literal translation, "to rely on their own ability", is not the same as, "who rely on the works". If English is not your mother tongue, and you need proof, I'm sure some of the posters will confirm what I say.Again, you’re out of line. But what do you care, there are no consequences for disobeying the commands of God.


But well has Paul said in Titus 3:9 "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." There’s no striving on my end. Maybe yours?


As I said in my previous post, each man is responsible for himself and also what he teaches. You keep the Law of Moses and I will flee it. You teach other men on this Forum to keep it, I teach other men that it is annulled, over, past, nailed to the cross, abolished. May the Great Judge judge each of us on that great and fateful day on what we taught and what we did. I’ll let Jesus answer that:
“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).

Boo
Dec 25th 2012, 12:51 PM
I am stunned that such a question can even arise here.

Am I getting a glimpse of the "Emergent Church?"

Nick
Dec 25th 2012, 03:28 PM
Jesus gave us two commandments that cover all the law: love God, and love thy neighbor. It would be breaking God's law to not forgive someone. I know there is a consequence for not forgiving someone.

Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.


Ahhh, simplicity. I see no one addressed your post but the fact of the matter is these two all-encompassing commandments supersede everything else. If we're practicing The Great Commandment (Mt. 22: 37-39) then everything else falls in place.

Tony Cross
Dec 26th 2012, 02:23 AM
I've been told by a member of this board that absolutely no one on this board believes there are any consequences for disobedience. This is not a pole about what the consequences may or may not look like but simply if there are consequences or not. Feel free to post Scripture in support of your answer.


Whoever told you that does not know what they are talking about and they apparently don't know the scriptures either...............

If there are no consequences to sin, then we might as well discard a very large portion of the Bible as being untrue. The examples are just too numerous to mention.

Noeb
Dec 26th 2012, 06:13 AM
In Romans Chapter 7 Paul speaks of the inability of any man to keep the Laws of God because of the law of sin and death in his members.Wrong. In Romans Chapter 7 Paul speaks of the inability of any man [that does not walk as one alive from the dead -Rom 6:1-14, 7:25, 8:1-4, 9-10, 13] to keep the Laws of God because of the law of sin and death in his members.

Nick
Dec 26th 2012, 07:14 AM
If there are no consequences to sin, then we might as well discard a very large portion of the Bible as being untrue. The examples are just too numerous to mention.

I don't see how one can think there are no consequences to sin. There are always consequences. We may repent and be forgiven, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequence. If I kill a man and truly repent I believe I will be forgiven, but that doesn't excuse the sin or the penalty of it.

jesusislord
Dec 26th 2012, 11:01 AM
I've been told by a member of this board that absolutely no one on this board believes there are any consequences for disobedience. This is not a pole about what the consequences may or may not look like but simply if there are consequences or not. Feel free to post Scripture in support of your answer.

Why would you believe someone that tells you something about everyone and they are not perfect?
No man or woman can speak for everyone on these boards, because not everyone here answers these questions.
People love controversy.

Of course there are consequences/punishments for disobedience, whether we know we are doing it or not.
More consequences/punishments for those that know they are disobedient and influencing others to be disobedient.
Less consequence/punishments for those that don't know and are hypnotically/ignorantly following.

LUKE 12:47-48
And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

AGAPE
MARK 12:29-31

LookingUp
Dec 26th 2012, 11:05 PM
I am stunned that such a question can even arise here.

Am I getting a glimpse of the "Emergent Church?"I'm stunned, too. I think that's the vibe the "grace only" folks give off.

LookingUp
Dec 26th 2012, 11:06 PM
If there are no consequences to sin, then we might as well discard a very large portion of the Bible as being untrue. The examples are just too numerous to mention.Yes, exactly! :-)

Fenris
Dec 28th 2012, 10:53 AM
And here I thought that Jesus's sacrifice covers all sins.

"Be a sinner and sin vigorously; but even more vigorously believe and delight in Christ who is victor over sin, death and the world.... It is sufficient that we recognize through the wealth of God's glory the lamb who bears the sins of the world; from this sin does not sever us, even if thousands, thousands of times in one day we should fornicate or murder."

Was Martin Luther wrong?

Tony Cross
Dec 28th 2012, 11:03 AM
And here I thought that Jesus's sacrifice covers all sins.

"Be a sinner and sin vigorously; but even more vigorously believe and delight in Christ who is victor over sin, death and the world.... It is sufficient that we recognize through the wealth of God's glory the lamb who bears the sins of the world; from this sin does not sever us, even if thousands, thousands of times in one day we should fornicate or murder."

Was Martin Luther wrong?

To say it is ok to murder repeatedly because Christ will forgive you anyway? Wow, yes he was wrong. Did Luther really believe a person of this character was "walking in the light?" After all, that is the condition under which Christ forgives us.

Boo
Dec 28th 2012, 11:05 AM
And here I thought that Jesus's sacrifice covers all sins.

"Be a sinner and sin vigorously; but even more vigorously believe and delight in Christ who is victor over sin, death and the world.... It is sufficient that we recognize through the wealth of God's glory the lamb who bears the sins of the world; from this sin does not sever us, even if thousands, thousands of times in one day we should fornicate or murder."

Was Martin Luther wrong?

That statement, given as it is, is wrong.

Fenris
Dec 28th 2012, 11:16 AM
So...Jesus's sacrifice doesn't cover all sins?

Tony Cross
Dec 28th 2012, 11:39 AM
Please read 1 John 1:7-9

Fenris
Dec 28th 2012, 11:42 AM
Please read 1 John 1:7-9

8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Jesus forgives all sins?

Raybob
Dec 28th 2012, 03:13 PM
And here I thought that Jesus's sacrifice covers all sins.

"Be a sinner and sin vigorously; but even more vigorously believe and delight in Christ who is victor over sin, death and the world.... It is sufficient that we recognize through the wealth of God's glory the lamb who bears the sins of the world; from this sin does not sever us, even if thousands, thousands of times in one day we should fornicate or murder."

Was Martin Luther wrong?Totally wrong on that one. M. Luther was right on about what he posted on the door of the RCC, but for some reason, he held on to many of their crazy ideas. We are forgiven for sins that are "past" because it is no longer our heart's desire to sin, back when our 'self' was our Lord, not Jesus.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Fenris
Dec 28th 2012, 03:15 PM
Totally wrong on that one.
OK, so again. Does Jesus's sacrifice cover all sins or not?

Noeb
Dec 28th 2012, 04:21 PM
Wrong Raybob. Sins passed are sins under the law which were not done away with the blood of animals leaving a conscience of sins. Context clearly distinguishes between law and faith.

Nick
Dec 28th 2012, 04:27 PM
And here I thought that Jesus's sacrifice covers all sins.

"Be a sinner and sin vigorously; but even more vigorously believe and delight in Christ who is victor over sin, death and the world.... It is sufficient that we recognize through the wealth of God's glory the lamb who bears the sins of the world; from this sin does not sever us, even if thousands, thousands of times in one day we should fornicate or murder."

Was Martin Luther wrong?

Luther is giving his followers carte blanche to do whatever pleases them because they have an easy way out of responsibility. Do followers of the Lutheran religion still follow his philosophy?

Fenris
Dec 28th 2012, 04:32 PM
Luther is giving his followers carte blanche to do whatever pleases them because they have an easy way out of responsibility.
But wouldn't that be logically true if Jesus's sacrifice covered all sins?

Noeb
Dec 28th 2012, 04:34 PM
Of course not. Its one sacrifice for all sin as long as we walk in the faith.

Raybob
Dec 28th 2012, 05:48 PM
OK, so again. Does Jesus's sacrifice cover all sins or not?No way. If anyone desires to sin, more than they desire to please God, there's no way that could be forgiven, IMO. That determines just who someone's lord is.

Raybob
Dec 28th 2012, 05:49 PM
Wrong Raybob. Sins passed are sins under the law which were not done away with the blood of animals leaving a conscience of sins. Context clearly distinguishes between law and faith.

The context of the passage is clearly the blood of Jesus.

Rom 3:24-25 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Warrior4God
Dec 28th 2012, 06:31 PM
And then, when you have kept the Law perfectly as Jesus did, remember that you are still unjustified in God's sight (Rom.3:20, Gal.2:16).

Ok, maybe I'm just slow in the head, but that rather confuses me. Nobody can keep, or ever has kept, the Law perfectly. Therefore, based on that fact, I can understand how we aren't justified before God on our own merits. However, if somebody other than Jesus did somehow manage to do so, why would they still not be "justified before God?" :confused

Noeb
Dec 28th 2012, 06:38 PM
Wrong Raybob. Read it again. You are in error. His blood is the focus of the faith [Christianity]. The context is law vs faith.

Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith [law] to faith [grace]: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Noeb
Dec 29th 2012, 01:57 AM
Luther is giving his followers carte blanche to do whatever pleases them because they have an easy way out of responsibility. Do followers of the Lutheran religion still follow his philosophy?
But wouldn't that be logically true if Jesus's sacrifice covered all sins?
Of course not. Its one sacrifice for all sin as long as we walk in the faith.Fenris, a Jew sins, goes to the temple with his sacrifice for the sin according to the law, and the sacrifice is made. He walks away forgiven according to the faith (the law) he follows. From here, he walks with God to the best of his ability in the knowledge and understanding he possesses. With me so far? You're no dummy and you know where I'm going. It's the same for a Christian. The only difference is, there's one sacrifice for all sins and it was performed for the sinner. Like the Jew, the Christian walks with God to the best of his ability in the knowledge and understanding he possesses. Guess what, if the Jew sins again and again and performs the sacrifice required again and again, he's forgiven according to the faith (the law) he follows, so there's no difference here. Both have a law to follow for their sin and both walk with God to the best of his ability in the knowledge and understanding he possesses. This is why Paul said "Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith [law] to faith [grace]: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." (see my edited post to Raybob above). Neither a good Jew or a good Christian would encourage sin, as crazy old Luther did in the quote you posted. That's an attitude of someone in darkness that is blind and cannot see. It's similar to what John addressed in 1John, which someone posted earlier. Gnostics taught it was ok to sin because your spirit is w/o sin. Anyone that thinks it's ok to sin is not of God, is not a brother, is deceived (and a seducer if they teach it), and walks in darkness.

Raybob
Dec 29th 2012, 05:00 AM
Wrong Raybob. Read it again. You are in error. His blood is the focus of the faith [Christianity]. The context is law vs faith.

Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith [law] to faith [grace]: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

You missed the point. The point was forgiveness of sins by the blood of Jesus. That alone is what this is about. Do you not see the word "blood"?

om 3:24-25 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Show me a verse that says anyone is forgiven for present or future sins and I'll eat my hat!

Tony Cross
Dec 29th 2012, 05:54 AM
You missed the point. The point was forgiveness of sins by the blood of Jesus. That alone is what this is about. Do you not see the word "blood"?

om 3:24-25 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Show me a verse that says anyone is forgiven for present or future sins and I'll eat my hat!

You are correct, RayBob.This clearly refers to past sins.

Tony Cross
Dec 29th 2012, 05:58 AM
You missed the point. The point was forgiveness of sins by the blood of Jesus. That alone is what this is about. Do you not see the word "blood"?

om 3:24-25 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Show me a verse that says anyone is forgiven for present or future sins and I'll eat my hat!

You are correct Raybob. It clearly refers to past sins. Might as well sell that hat, you won't have to worry about eating it.

Noeb
Dec 29th 2012, 06:44 AM
You missed the point. The point was forgiveness of sins by the blood of Jesus.No that wasn't the point.



That alone is what this is about. Do you not see the word "blood"?What's that got to do with the question? Fenris said, "And here I thought that Jesus's sacrifice covers all sins.", so I ask you Raybob, if you sin today or tomorrow, what sacrifice (blood) covers those sins?
.....
...
there you have it!
"faith in his (Jesus') blood"

Both covenants require blood. That's a given. The question is, do you need to continually offer sacrifice (law) or not (faith in his blood)? Fenris does. We don't. Jesus' sacrifice covers all sins. Unless of course your sin today or tomorrow would not be covered should you commit them. What say you?



Show me a verse that says anyone is forgiven for present or future sins and I'll eat my hat!Pick one. Really man, show me a verse that says Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient for all sin.
.......
....
you can't!

Noeb
Dec 29th 2012, 06:51 AM
You are correct Raybob. It clearly refers to past sins. Might as well sell that hat, you won't have to worry about eating it.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

See that little word in bold? Amazing huh? From law to grace. How about these words

Rom 3:21 But now
Rom 3:25 to declare
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time

But now, as opposed to then. Past as opposed to present.

JFB Commentary
"that are past — not the sins committed by the believer before he embraces Christ, but the sins committed under the old economy, before Christ came to “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”
through the forbearance of God — God not remitting but only forbearing to punish them, or passing them by, until an adequate atonement for them should be made. In thus not imputing them, God was righteous, but He was not seen to be so; there was no “manifestation of His righteousness” in doing so under the ancient economy. But now that God can “set forth” Christ as a “propitiation for sin through faith in His blood,” the righteousness of His procedure in passing by the sins of believers before, and in now remitting them, is “manifested,” declared, brought fully out to the view of the whole world. (Our translators have unfortunately missed this glorious truth, taking “the sins that are past” to mean the past sins of believers - committed before faith - and rendering, by the word “remission,” what means only a “passing by”; thus making it appear that “remission of sins” is “through the forbearance of God,” which it certainly is not)."

Tony Cross
Dec 29th 2012, 07:31 AM
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

See that little word in bold? Amazing huh? From law to grace. How about these words

Rom 3:21 But now
Rom 3:25 to declare
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time

But now, as opposed to then. Past as opposed to present.

JFB Commentary
"that are past — not the sins committed by the believer before he embraces Christ, but the sins committed under the old economy, before Christ came to “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”
through the forbearance of God — God not remitting but only forbearing to punish them, or passing them by, until an adequate atonement for them should be made. In thus not imputing them, God was righteous, but He was not seen to be so; there was no “manifestation of His righteousness” in doing so under the ancient economy. But now that God can “set forth” Christ as a “propitiation for sin through faith in His blood,” the righteousness of His procedure in passing by the sins of believers before, and in now remitting them, is “manifested,” declared, brought fully out to the view of the whole world. (Our translators have unfortunately missed this glorious truth, taking “the sins that are past” to mean the past sins of believers - committed before faith - and rendering, by the word “remission,” what means only a “passing by”; thus making it appear that “remission of sins” is “through the forbearance of God,” which it certainly is not)."

And all this is supposed to prove exactly what, that Christ's shed blood covers sins from now to eternity no matter what kind of life we live?

How about dispensing with the "cute, wise guy" remarks so we all won't have to wade through them to get to the meat of the discussion.

Noeb
Dec 29th 2012, 07:52 AM
And all this is supposed to prove exactly what, that Christ's shed blood covers sins from now to eternityYes! Raybob said past sins.


no matter what kind of life we live?Raybob said past sins.


How about dispensing with the "cute, wise guy" remarks so we all won't have to wade through them to get to the meat of the discussion.How about staying on topic? If Jesus' blood only covers sins we committed in the past, what covers any others?

Raybob
Dec 29th 2012, 08:56 AM
No that wasn't the point.


What's that got to do with the question? Fenris said, "And here I thought that Jesus's sacrifice covers all sins.", so I ask you Raybob, if you sin today or tomorrow, what sacrifice (blood) covers those sins?..

There would be no sacrifice to ever cover those. I'm not saying I never slip and get caught in a moment, but when I do, I quickly repent and ask whoever I hurt to forgive me. If my desire was to get away with something, thinking I wouldn't get caught and I acted on my desire, not acting as the Holy Spirit would have me act, there would be NO sacrifice to ever cover that.

Heb 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, (5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, (6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

God knows our heart's desire. We can tell of others by their actions or "fruits".

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Boo
Dec 29th 2012, 02:47 PM
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. So, Jesus' sacrifice and cover ALL sins. It is not automatic however.

The way we live determines who really is our God. Luther's statement would indicate that his God was not the same one that I serve. My God would never accept that I intend to go sin freely because I know my sins are forgiven in the future automatically.

Paul seemed to have the same understanding - we don't go on sinning because Grace abounds.

Noeb
Dec 29th 2012, 07:03 PM
There would be no sacrifice to ever cover those. I'm not saying I never slip and get caught in a moment, but when I do, I quickly repent and ask whoever I hurt to forgive me.

God knows our heart's desireSo basically
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
????

But then, that's not a "slip" or being "caught in the moment" is it, because it says the blood of Jesus Christ his Son continually cleanses us from "sin". Oh, sorry, actually it says "all sin" ;) . Because that's what it is.
See, John was addressing Gnostic heresy, which is the idea that when you sinned it was just your flesh because your spirit cannot sin so you technically did not and cannot sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Sounds like what you are saying.
Raybob said- "I'm not saying I never slip and get caught in a moment, but..............
God knows our heart's desire."

After all, it's just a "slip" or being "caught in the moment" right? But John makes it clear it's not. That it is sin....
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.



If my desire was to get away with something, thinking I wouldn't get caughtImpossible for a Christian.



and I acted on my desire, not acting as the Holy Spirit would have me act, there would be NO sacrifice to ever cover that.

Heb 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, (5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, (6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.Well, I don't take verses in the book of Hebrews out of the context of drawing back from Christ/falling away. Committing a sin is not drawing back from Christ/falling away. Drawing back from Christ/falling away is The Sin the book is addressing. It's not contradicting the rest of the NT and saying there's no sacrifice for believers when we sin. IF we sin we have an advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Noeb
Dec 29th 2012, 07:04 PM
Hey Tony Cross? You agreeing with post #46?

Raybob
Dec 29th 2012, 09:36 PM
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. So, Jesus' sacrifice and cover ALL sins. It is not automatic however.

The way we live determines who really is our God. Luther's statement would indicate that his God was not the same one that I serve. My God would never accept that I intend to go sin freely because I know my sins are forgiven in the future automatically.

Paul seemed to have the same understanding - we don't go on sinning because Grace abounds.

Don't you think it has anything to do with being faithful to Him in your life???

Raybob
Dec 29th 2012, 09:39 PM
So basically
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
????

But then, that's not a "slip" or being "caught in the moment" is it, because it says the blood of Jesus Christ his Son continually cleanses us from "sin". Oh, sorry, actually it says "all sin" ;) . Because that's what it is...

Of course, it starts with a great big fat "IF." "IF WE WALK IN THE LIGHT, AS HE IS IN THE LIGHT."

Diggindeeper
Dec 30th 2012, 12:48 AM
Of course, it starts with a great big fat "IF." "IF WE WALK IN THE LIGHT, AS HE IS IN THE LIGHT."

Raybob...there you go again. You just have to keep reminding us of the 'bad word' in the Bible! That word...IF......
You just won't let us forget that one word, will you?? 'IF' you abide in me and 'IF' my word abides in you. 'IF' you walk in the light..... and all those other scriptures with that nasty word in them!

Tony Cross
Dec 30th 2012, 04:59 AM
Hey Tony Cross? You agreeing with post #46?

Yes, I do, if this is what he's saying, and I believe it is.

Christ made a one time sacrifice for all (Heb. 10:9-10). Christ's blood will also cover future sins as long as we walk in the light. This passage in Ist John is often quoted, but many people tend to ignore that little word "IF". If we are still living the Christian life, even though we occasionally sin, we will be forgiven. If we don't, but fall away and stop being a follower of Christ, go back into the world and turn our backs on Him, we will be lost if we don't eventually repent.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries

Diggindeeper
Dec 30th 2012, 05:40 AM
Yes, I do, if this is what he's saying, and I believe it is.

Christ made a one time sacrifice for all (Heb. 10:9-10). Christ's blood will also cover future sins as long as we walk in the light. This passage in Ist John is often quoted, but many people tend to ignore that little word "IF". If we are still living the Christian life, even though we occasionally sin, we will be forgiven. If we don't, but fall away and stop being a follower of Christ, go back into the world and turn our backs on Him, we will be lost if we don't eventually repent.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries

This is what the scripture says, Tony Cross. I have to say I agree totally with your post above. Totally and absolutely. 110% in agreement with you!

Tony Cross
Dec 30th 2012, 05:45 AM
This is what the scripture says, Tony Cross. I have to say I agree totally with your post above. Totally and absolutely. 110% in agreement with you!

Wow. Mind if I frame this one Diggin? My wife won't even say this about me. :)

Diggindeeper
Dec 30th 2012, 05:51 AM
I just betcha if you tell her what I agee with...then she'll agree with BOTH you and me! I just betcha.............:idea:

Noeb
Dec 30th 2012, 06:25 AM
Of course, it starts with a great big fat "IF." "IF WE WALK IN THE LIGHT, AS HE IS IN THE LIGHT."So then you are walking in the light when you slip or get caught in the moment? How does that hat taste? Again,
1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Noeb
Dec 30th 2012, 06:26 AM
Yes, I do, if this is what he's saying, and I believe it is.

Christ made a one time sacrifice for all (Heb. 10:9-10). Christ's blood will also cover future sins as long as we walk in the light. This passage in Ist John is often quoted, but many people tend to ignore that little word "IF". If we are still living the Christian life, even though we occasionally sin, we will be forgiven. If we don't, but fall away and stop being a follower of Christ, go back into the world and turn our backs on Him, we will be lost if we don't eventually repent.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversariesIf that's what he's saying, it not what he said.

Tony Cross
Dec 30th 2012, 06:37 AM
If that's what he's saying, it not what he said.

It could be a matter of semantics, that's why I left it open for discussion.

Raybob
Dec 30th 2012, 06:38 AM
So then you are walking in the light when you slip or get caught in the moment? ...

Of course! How else could I know to immediately repent and beg forgiveness for whoever I was hurting, as I said? The holy spirit of truth convicts me every time, because I reign with Him. What other purpose is there, to being a Christian, if it isn't to have that victory over the devil in one's life? Why else would anyone call themselves a Christian?

Tony Cross
Dec 30th 2012, 06:49 AM
Of course! How else could I know to immediately repent and beg forgiveness for whoever I was hurting, as I said? The holy spirit of truth convicts me every time, because I reign with Him. What other purpose is there, to being a Christian, if it isn't to have that victory over the devil in one's life? Why else would anyone call themselves a Christian?

We know if we are striving to lead the Christian life or not. I believe the key word is pattern. Have we developed a pattern of sinning after conversion? If so, we are lost unless we repent. Everyone commits occasional sin. We are forgiven as long as we repent and continue to follow Christ.

Noeb
Dec 30th 2012, 06:56 AM
Of course! How else could I know to immediately repent and beg forgiveness for whoever I was hurting, as I said? The holy spirit of truth convicts me every time, because I reign with Him. What other purpose is there, to being a Christian, if it isn't to have that victory over the devil in one's life? Why else would anyone call themselves a Christian?I'd guess you know because you are sinning, not slipping up or getting caught up in the moment. You need forgiveness then. Only provided by His blood that covers all sin, and not just sin committed before conversion. You disagreed. Now you agree? Or could you just not articulate this?

Diggindeeper
Dec 30th 2012, 07:48 AM
I'd guess you know because you are sinning, not slipping up or getting caught up in the moment. You need forgiveness then. Only provided by His blood that covers all sin, and not just sin committed before conversion. You disagreed. Now you agree? Or could you just not articulate this?

Noeb...you believe all future sins were forgiven at the cross??
To me, that is the same as issuing a 'License to Sin'. Its certainly not Jesus saying, "Go and sin NO MORE."

Tony Cross
Dec 30th 2012, 07:57 AM
Noeb...you believe all future sins were forgiven at the cross??
To me, that is the same as issuing a 'License to Sin'. Its certainly not Jesus saying, "Go and sin NO MORE."

I also would like to know this, because there has been some ambiguity on that subject in this thread.

Boo
Dec 30th 2012, 12:40 PM
Don't you think it has anything to do with being faithful to Him in your life???

Of course, I do. Did I give the impression that I don't think it does? I fail to see where my statement drew that question.

Our actions reveal what we truly believe about God.

Nick
Dec 30th 2012, 04:50 PM
We know if we are striving to lead the Christian life or not. I believe the key word is pattern. Have we developed a pattern of sinning after conversion? If so, we are lost unless we repent. Everyone commits occasional sin. We are forgiven as long as we repent and continue to follow Christ.

This thread has caused me to think some, which is good. Here's what I've concluded, right or wrong (my views are always subject to change based on interpretation). Ok, here it goes...If God allows mankind to suffer because of his own sins here upon the earth, then you can be assured that it will hold true in eternity as well. If you die without having your sins forgiven, then you will go to Hell, whether you're a believer or not.

John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A3&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26124a)]”
2 Thessalonians 2:12 "and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."
Revelation 20:15: "Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."
Matthew 5:18 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

God promises to punish unrepentant sin. To "repent" is to do a complete 180 and turn away from that sin. That means if I'm looking at porn I stop and do it no more. That means if I'm a drunk, I go get help so I don't continue being a drunkard, etc., etc. What if I slip and fall? Well, I acknowledge and confess it, and make a concerted effort to not continue in that sin. Repenting is not asking for forgiveness only to go out and commit the same sin again, again and again. That's not repentance. That's self delusion, willful and deliberate sin.

Are all sins equal in the eyes of God? I don't think so. God clearly orders, in the great book of Leviticus, punishments to be imposed according to the severity of the sin committed. Many people think ALL sin is equal in the eyes of the Lord. Paul’s statement in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" helps to substantiate that, but it is often taken way out of context. Sinning is "missing the mark". That verse has nothing to do with all sin being equal in the God's view. You can miss the mark by a little (the occasional lie) or by a wide margin (mass murder). There are Christians who actually believe that telling a lie is viewed equally with murder because they both "fall short of the glory of God". Then Paul tells us in Gal 6:7 "For whatever a man sows, that he will also reap".

To preach that the act of slaughtering children is no worse a sin than overeating, is a detriment to any ministry fighting to counter these evils, and an abomination to the cause of Christ. If a believer accepted Christ they need to prove their acceptance by living a life of obedience to God’s 10 Commandments, otherwise their "acceptance" was obviously not sincere. The book of James calls believers out on this very truth - OSAS is utter nonsense, in my opinion. Christ says in Mt. 5:19 "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Christ is talking about unrepentant sin.

Boo
Dec 31st 2012, 06:25 AM
And unrepentant sin is that sin that we continue to schedule to happen on bowling night, at the New Year's Eve party, and when out with the girls/guys. Knowing we can ask forgiveness later doesn't quite cut it.

Noeb
Dec 31st 2012, 07:30 AM
Noeb...you believe all future sins were forgiven at the cross??1Jn 2:12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

Little children here is “dear sons and daughters” not "infants". It's a term of endearment used as a teacher towards disciples.

It's also in John.....
Joh 13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

are forgiven in 1Jn 2:12 is “have been, and are forgiven you” "if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another"
It doesn't say your sins will be forgiven. It says have and are. Forgiveness has been given. We are complete in Him and have been given all things pertaining to life and glodliness. If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart. No more conscience of sins so we can serve the living God. If we sin we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Our position does not change. We don't bounce in and out of the faith based on 'confession'. Therefore, it is impossible to be unforgiven. If you are unforgiven you are not washed/covered/clean/sanctified by his blood, and do not have the Spirit and are not His. So which is it? Sanctified or not?

What throws people off is
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Confess is not going to confession, or keeping a short list and going through some ritual, speaking with your mouth in order that you may receive forgiveness. John is talking about our walk.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Confess means to agree, so if we sin while we walk in Him, we are corrected and agree it is sin and continue in the forgiveness given us because
"we have fellowship one with another"
Fellowship, and its meaning, is almost always overlooked and/or misunderstood. It means share in something common and includes being purged by his blood. As we walk with God, we agree with God concerning our sin.



To me, that is the same as issuing a 'License to Sin'. Its certainly not Jesus saying, "Go and sin NO MORE."Is it? Is it a license to sin for a Jew to be able to take the appointed sacrifice to the temple for the sin he committed while God was saying sin no more? After all, all he has to do is provide the appropraite sacrifice, right? Do you really expect anyone to believe that some supposed requirement to 'confess sin' in order to go from unforgiven to forgiven makes anyone sin less? C'mon now. It's not true. In both interpretations, the believer must walk In Him, and if they do not continue in the faith (In Him), they can loose their salvation. There's no such thing as a license to sin, or anything similar possible in Christianity. It's a strawman. Knowing I am already forgiven makes it much harder to sin......love Him because He first loved me. Thinking I can confess after I sin, offers little restraint.

Why isn't "Just confess it after you've sinned" a license to sin?
"Well, it's a matter of the heart"......
That's right. A Christian does not have this attitude about sin, whether they think they have to confess their sin or believe their sin is already forgiven. My sin will continue to be forgiven as long as I continue in the faith, and that is far more theologically sound than the idea that I am unforgiven and out of fellowship unless I 'confess my sin'.

Diggindeeper
Dec 31st 2012, 07:58 AM
What throws people off is
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Confess is not going to confession, or keeping a short list and going through some ritual, speaking with your mouth in order that you may receive forgiveness. John is talking about our walk.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

In both interpretations, the believer must walk In Him, and if they do not continue in the faith (In Him), they can loose their salvation. There's no such thing as a license to sin, or anything similar possible in Christianity. Thinking I can confess after I sin, offers little restraint.

Why isn't "Just confess it after you've sinned" a license to sin?
"Well, it's a matter of the heart"......
That's right. A Christian does not have this attitude about sin, whether they think they have to confess their sin or believe their sin is already forgiven. My sin will continue to be forgiven as long as I continue in the faith, and that is far more theologically sound than the idea that I am unforgiven and out of fellowship unless I 'confess my sin'.

I appreciate your explanation, Noeb. This is how I see it too. Although I have actually heard people say, "Jesus blood took away all sins...past, present and future." And I have met a few who actually believe that no matter what they do (in regards to 'willful sinning'), all they must do is confess. So, over and over and over they are 'confessing', while still doing the same things over and over. Gazing at porn is one such example. Going out getting drunk is another. But no one is forcing them to go to porn sites or go and pay for the magazines. No one is making them go out and buy that next drink. Or the next. Some even say, "God knows I'm only human" as if God is looking down at them and saying, "He can't help sinning. He's just a feeble little human." This, just as 'confession' that you spoke of, is nonsense.

The key is, like you said, the believer must walk In Him, and if they do not continue in the faith (In Him), they can loose their salvation. Every day, with every breath, we are expected to 'walk in Him'. Continued consistency is vital.

Diggindeeper
Dec 31st 2012, 08:02 AM
I've been told by a member of this board that absolutely no one on this board believes there are any consequences for disobedience. This is not a pole about what the consequences may or may not look like but simply if there are consequences or not. Feel free to post Scripture in support of your answer.

Looking up...I think you need to go back to that member of this board who told you that "absolutely no one on this board believes there are any consequences for disobedience" that they are dead wrong! There are some well studied people on this board and as your poll is showing, they DO know there ARE consequences for disbedience. That person is definitely in a very small minority!

Raybob
Dec 31st 2012, 08:25 AM
1Jn 2:12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

Little children here is “dear sons and daughters” not "infants". It's a term of endearment used as a teacher towards disciples.

It's also in John.....
Joh 13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

are forgiven in 1Jn 2:12 is “have been, and are forgiven you” "if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another"
It doesn't say your sins will be forgiven. It says have and are. Forgiveness has been given. We are complete in Him and have been given all things pertaining to life and glodliness. If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart.Yes IF we walk in the light, as He is in the light. He didn't sin.
No more conscience of sins so we can serve the living God. If we sin we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Our position does not change. We don't bounce in and out of the faith based on 'confession'. Therefore, it is impossible to be unforgiven.What do you mean, "No more conscience of sins?" What do you mean, sin not in the flesh? All sin is of flesh, world and devil. Did you say "sin in the spirit?" I don't get that either.


Thinking I can confess after I sin, offers little restraint.
Yes, but what if your theories are wrong, and Jesus either returned that moment, or called you home for some other reason?

Noeb
Dec 31st 2012, 05:01 PM
What do you mean, "No more conscience of sins?"guilt unatoned for, leaves a conscience of sins. Since His blood removes this, it is therefore evident that all sin is forgiven based on a past offering in the holy place. After all, it's a new and living way, not a regurgitation of the law.

Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised; )



What do you mean, sin not in the flesh? All sin is of flesh, world and devil. Did you say "sin in the spirit?" I don't get that either.Scripture uses "in the flesh" and "in the Spirit" for our position. We are either "In Christ" or not. If you are "in the flesh" you do not have the Spirit and are not His.

Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

When scripture says "walk in the Spirit" it means walk "In Christ" --Eph 1:3.....blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:--, walk "in what Christ has done and given you", walk "by faith believing you are dead to sin and alive to God", walk "believing God, that you are who He says you are In Christ" even though you don't see it with your eyes, believe the God that calls those things that are not as though they are, like Abraham believed God. 2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

If our position is "in the Spirit" --blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:-- walk in it. How do you walk in Him? Same way you received Him!

Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.




Yes, but what if your theories are wrong, and Jesus either returned that moment, or called you home for some other reason?Apply the same to your interpretation. What if Jesus either returned that moment, or called you home for some other reason? I say
1Jn 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised; )

ESV
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.

The JFB Commentary
Heb 10:23
(Heb_3:6, Heb_3:14; Heb_4:14.)
profession — Greek, “confession.”
our faith — rather as Greek, “our hope”; which is indeed faith exercised as to the future inheritance. Hope rests on faith, and at the same time quickens faith, and is the ground of our bold confession (1Pe_3:15). Hope is similarly (Heb_10:22) connected with purification (1Jo_3:3).
without wavering — without declension (Heb_3:14), “steadfast unto the end.”
he — God is faithful to His promises (Heb_6:17, Heb_6:18; Heb_11:11; Heb_12:26, Heb_12:28; 1Co_1:9; 1Co_10:13; 1Th_5:24; 2Th_3:3; see also Christ’s promise, Joh_12:26); but man is too often unfaithful to his duties.

LookingUp
Dec 31st 2012, 05:40 PM
Looking up...I think you need to go back to that member of this board who told you that "absolutely no one on this board believes there are any consequences for disobedience" that they are dead wrong! There are some well studied people on this board and as your poll is showing, they DO know there ARE consequences for disbedience. That person is definitely in a very small minority!Hi, Diggindeeper. He's been to this thread, so I hope his view is changing or has changed.

Noeb
Dec 31st 2012, 06:16 PM
I appreciate your explanation, Noeb. This is how I see it too. Although I have actually heard people say, "Jesus blood took away all sins...past, present and future." And I have met a few who actually believe that no matter what they do (in regards to 'willful sinning'), all they must do is confess.I have too, but upon further examination find doctrines of men and almost nothing but bad fruit. So what do I conclude?



So, over and over and over they are 'confessing', while still doing the same things over and over. Gazing at porn is one such example. Going out getting drunk is another. But no one is forcing them to go to porn sites or go and pay for the magazines. No one is making them go out and buy that next drink. Or the next. Some even say, "God knows I'm only human" as if God is looking down at them and saying, "He can't help sinning. He's just a feeble little human." This, just as 'confession' that you spoke of, is nonsense.I agree. Back before computers/internet, when I was a baby Christian I had a porn and lust problem. I was the Romans 7 man that did what I didn't want to do, etc....and either afterward or at the end of the day would 'confess'. It didn't take very long before my face was in the carpet crying....it's sin for me to be repeating these sins and coming before you to confess them, day after day or several times a day......I'm supposed to be free from sin, but how to perform it I find not.....

If a person doesn't quickly come to this realization
"it's sin for me to be repeating these sins and coming before you to confess them, day after day or several times a day"
something is seriously wrong, IMO. What do we conclude about such individuals? I don't see how they are walking in truth, not just because of my experience but be cause my experience agrees with Scripture. It's one thing to be like Paul in Romans 7 and think "I'm supposed to be free from sin, but how to perform it I find not"....Lord show me "v25 -I think God through Jesus Christ". It's another thing to think "I can't be free from sin, so I'll just sin and confess, sin and confess, sin and confess......."

LookingUp
Dec 31st 2012, 06:25 PM
In Heb. 9:14, it’s works of justification from which one’s conscience is purged, not a sorrowful, repentant heart. Heb. 10:1 says we are made perfect and because of that, we know that no amount of “continually offering up of sacrifices” can make us more perfect. We are justified. But just because our sins are “taken away” doesn’t mean we NEVER sin. When we do, it is natural for the believer, who has the Spirit, to feel convicted, sorrowful and repentant. It is natural for the believer to express sorrow in words (i.e. "I's so sorry") and body language (i.e. weeping, etc.). And that sounds like “asking forgiveness” to me.

“Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).

Gal. 6:1 shows that a believer can sin and be restored.

“I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us” (2 Cor. 7:9).

2 Cor. 7:9 says that sorrow to the point of repentance restores a believer who falls into sin.

“If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do no associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thes. 3:14-15).

2 Thes. 3:14-15 shows that a brother can sin. The admonishment is meant to help restore that brother (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5).

Fenris
Dec 31st 2012, 06:45 PM
What are the consequences?

LookingUp
Dec 31st 2012, 08:28 PM
What are the consequences?"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Nick
Dec 31st 2012, 08:54 PM
"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The consequences of disobeying God's law while HERE on earth are fairly self-evident, or at least they should be. If I lie, steal, cheat on my wife, covet, etc., I live a life separated from God, unless I truly repent and make an effort to "sin no more" knowing full well that I'll fall short of the Golden ideal, which is perfection. I look at the Law as a measuring stick for myself. The further I am from keeping it, the further I am from God.

As far as consequences, I know what it's like to live like a heathen, and I know what it's like to try to follow God's will, however falteringly. I love the sinful pleasures of life, but I hate their consequences. I love self-indulgence, but I hate the way it makes me feel. I love to drink to excess, but I hate the hangover and the consequences that always follow one of my drinking sprees. I could go on and on. Living life within Christian principles, which include the Law, requires self-sacrifice. Who likes that? I don't, but I know it's the ticket to freedom and peace of mind. I want more of that so I'm willing to sacrifice the things that seem so pleasurable on the surface because my experience has showed me it always result in pain and isolation. One hard look at Solomon's life should be convincing enough testimony for anyone.

Fenris
Dec 31st 2012, 09:45 PM
"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
What does that mean?

What laws are in effect and what aren't?

LookingUp
Dec 31st 2012, 10:28 PM
What does that mean?

What laws are in effect and what aren't?If a Pharisee had asked Jesus, "What law is not in effect," how would he answer?

“The scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them …you…have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others” (Mat. 23:2-23).

Fenris
Jan 1st 2013, 12:29 PM
If a Pharisee had asked Jesus, "What law is not in effect," how would he answer?

So, all of them are in effect?

WSGAC
Jan 1st 2013, 06:26 PM
"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And yet food laws are annuled (see Acts 10), circumcision also (see Paul), as are sabbath laws (see Paul).

LookingUp
Jan 1st 2013, 06:37 PM
And yet food laws are annuled (see Acts 10), circumcision also (see Paul), as are sabbath laws (see Paul).Acts 10 isn't about food laws. It's about Gentiles. You'll have to provide Scripture for circumcision and Sabbath. They're not "annulled"--"Do not think I came to abolish" (Mt. 5:17); they're not required for justification--"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4).

LookingUp
Jan 1st 2013, 06:41 PM
So, all of them are in effect?Like I said, if the Jerusalem Jews saw fit to continue observance of them all their lives, why wouldn't any other Jewish follower of Jesus?

Tony Cross
Jan 1st 2013, 08:33 PM
And yet food laws are annuled (see Acts 10), circumcision also (see Paul), as are sabbath laws (see Paul).

The old law was fulfilled, not annuled. See Matt. 5:17. When Christ died on the cross, he fulfilled the old law (Col. 2:14)

WSGAC
Jan 1st 2013, 10:36 PM
Acts 10 isn't about food laws. It's about Gentiles. You'll have to provide Scripture for circumcision and Sabbath. They're not "annulled"--"Do not think I came to abolish" (Mt. 5:17); they're not required for justification--"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4).

Acts 10 is about the kosher food laws being set aside so that Peter could go into the house of a gentile. Act 10:12-14 has Peter seeing, and then being commanded to kill and eat the common animals. He answers, "No Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." In the end he is told not to call unclean what God has made clean. It was then that Peter receives the call to go to Cornelius's house. Clearly the kosher laws had been set aside.

As for circumcision also being set aside, see Romans 2:26-29; 1 Corinthians 7:18-19; Galatians 5:6, 6:15; Philippians 3:3. It is clear, for Paul, that circumcision is no longer a sign of the covenant relationship with God. Hence, it too is set aside.

As for the sabbath being set aside, see Colossians 2:16-18, Paul implores his readers to have a clear consciensce and not worry about what others insist from you in terms of religious observance...ie. when you celebrate the sabbath v.16.

These laws have been set aside, and are no longer observed. They are annulled...no longer useful or necessary. Go ahead and practice them if you wish, but they have now been dissolved, for Christ is the substance and not kosher laws, circumcision or sabbath observance.

WSGAC
Jan 1st 2013, 10:40 PM
The old law was fulfilled, not annuled. See Matt. 5:17. When Christ died on the cross, he fulfilled the old law (Col. 2:14)

Yes, Christ has fulfilled them, but they are no longer necessary. If they are, I hope you're not eating any shell fish!

LookingUp
Jan 1st 2013, 11:58 PM
Acts 10 is about the kosher food laws being set aside so that Peter could go into the house of a gentile. Act 10:12-14 has Peter seeing and then being commanded to kill and eat the common animals. He answers, "No Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." In the end he is told not to call unclean what God has made clean. It was then that Peter receives the call to go to Cornelius's house. Clearly the kosher laws had been set aside.An analogy is being presented for teaching purposes: unclean foods = Gentiles (who were considered unclean). Besides, going into the home of people who eat unclean foods isn’t the same thing as eating unclean foods.

Were you water baptized? Why? Did it make you clean? No, it didn’t but you obeyed God anyway, right? Do you take the bread and the wine in remembrance of Christ’s broken body and shed blood? Why? Does the act of doing that make you clean? No, it doesn’t but you obey God anyway, right?


As for circumcision also being set aside, see Romans 2:26-29;Physical circumcision is not “set aside” here. Paul says that physical “circumcision is of value if you practice the Law” (Rom. 2:25). Paul says that “if you are a transgressor of the Law your circumcision has become uncircumcision” (Rom. 2:25). In other words, one’s physical circumcision has lost its value. But notice, it does have value (cf. Rom. 3:1).


1 Corinthians 7:18-19;Physical circumcision is not “set aside” here. If anything, it’s speaks contrary to that notion. Paul writes, “Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised” (1 Cor. 7:18). This is Paul speaking to Jews, obviously, because it is only Jewish men who came to the faith circumcised.

Next, Paul is speaking to Gentile men: “Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised” (1 Cor. 7:18). Why not? Why shouldn’t the Gentile man get circumcised? Doesn’t he need to in order to be accepted by God? Paul writes, “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God” (1 Cor. 7:19).

This teaching goes nicely with the one above found in Romans 2. Paul isn’t advocating a setting aside of circumcision for remember he wrote, “Circumcision is of value if you practice the Law” (Rom. 2:25). Paul is reinforcing the teaching that “God who knows the heart testified to them (Gentiles) giving them the Holy Spirit just as He also did to us (the first Jewish believers) and God made no distinction between us and them cleaning their hearts by faith” (see Acts 15:8-9).


Galatians 5:6, 6:15This says the same as 1 Cor. 7:19 above. The point is that being a Jew (i.e. circumcision) or being a Gentile (i.e. uncircumcision) means nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God. Again, this complements the Romans 2 teaching that says that physical circumcision isn’t an automatic in with God. What matters to God is “faith working through love.” In other words, keeping the requirements of the Law (Rom. 2:26). This is evidence of a circumcised heart (Rom. 2:29).


Philippians 3:3.Again, notice how this equates “physical” circumcision with “confidence in the flesh”? Here’s the running theme:
• Paul is the minister to the uncircumcision (Gentiles)
• His gospel says that the Gentiles get to partake in God’s New Covenant with Israel without physical circumcision
• Some Jewish followers of Christ have a hard time accepting this and try to convince Paul’s converted Gentiles that they need to get circumcised

This last bullet must be very convincing because we see Paul telling his converts over and over that physical circumcision is not what’s important to God—what’s important is keeping the commandments of God, faith working through love

Paul works so hard at trying to convince these people that God really does accept them without physical circumcision that, today, people think Paul was setting aside circumcision for everyone, even Jews. The Jerusalem Jews continued observing the Mosaic Law (Acts 21) which means they continued circumcising their babies. Why? Because it justified them? Because they’d be cursed if they didn’t? No! Because that act is “keeping the commandments of God” and “faith working through love.” It’s obeying God because He asked you to do it and you love Him.


It is clear, for Paul, that circumcision is no longer a sign of the covenant relationship with God. Hence, it too is set aside.Paul taught that physical circumcision was NEVER a guarantee that you were in covenant relationship with God (cf. Rom. 11:2-4).


As for the sabbath being set aside, see Colossians 2:16-18, Paul implores his readers to have a clear consciensce and not worry about what others insist from you in terms of religious observance...ie. when you celebrate the sabbath v.16.What makes you think it is “set aside” if one is not to judge you in regard to how you observe it? Please take careful note of Paul’s words. He NEVER says anything about NOT observing it; his words are regarding HOW you observe it. Which makes sense since we see that one of Jesus’ complaints of the Pharisees was their interpretation of Sabbath observance. They placed their own traditions and interpretations over the true purpose of Sabbath observance (Mark 3:5).

It’s interesting to note that Jesus’ custom was to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath (Luke 4:16) and this was his regular practice. And Paul’s custom, too, was to teach in the synagogues on the Sabbath day (Acts 17:2-3).


These laws have been set aside, and are no longer observed. They are anulled...no longer useful or necessary. Go ahead and practice them if you wish, but they have now been dissolved, for Christ is the substance and not kosher laws, circumcision or sabbath observance.I do hope you prayerfully consider what I’ve shared.

WSGAC
Jan 2nd 2013, 12:03 AM
Are you aware of the issues in the early church, as illustrated in Acts 15? Certain laws were set aside. If they had not been, gentile Christians today would need to be observing kosher laws, circumcision law, and sabbath laws. We don't, and that because of what the early church apostles decided in Acts 15. Mind you, not all agreed. Certain Judaizers continued to insist gentile Christians must conform to Mosaic law, but the Church moved on.

LookingUp
Jan 2nd 2013, 02:57 AM
Are you aware of the issues in the early church, as illustrated in Acts 15? Certain laws were set aside. If they had not been, gentile Christians today would need to be observing kosher laws, circumcision law, and sabbath laws. We don't, and that because of what the early church apostles decided in Acts 15. Mind you, not all agreed. Certain Judaizers continued to insist gentile Christians must conform to Mosaic law, but the Church moved on.I agree with all of this. The Sinai Covenant said that if Gentiles want to partake in the covenant, they had to be physically circumcised. The New Covenant doesn’t require that.

Fenris
Jan 2nd 2013, 01:20 PM
Like I said, if the Jerusalem Jews saw fit to continue observance of them all their lives, why wouldn't any other Jewish follower of Jesus?

So they're in effect, but only for "Jerusalem Jews"?

Fenris
Jan 2nd 2013, 01:22 PM
An analogy is being presented for teaching purposes: unclean foods = Gentiles (who were considered unclean).
Great analogy. Yeah time for me to go eat some tasty gentile. :lol:

Gentiles are not considered "unclean".

LookingUp
Jan 2nd 2013, 05:49 PM
Great analogy. Yeah time for me to go eat some tasty gentile. :lol:

Gentiles are not considered "unclean".If you've read the Hebrew Scriptures, I'm sure you've seen stranger analogies and illustrations by some of God's prophets.

Anyway, I didn't come up with the analogy, God did. So, you're not mocking me, you're mocking God.

Acts 10:28
He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."

Fenris
Jan 2nd 2013, 05:53 PM
If you've read the Hebrew Scriptures, I'm sure you've seen stranger analogies and illustrations by some of God's prophets. This one takes the cake.


Anyway, I didn't come up with the analogy, God did:

Acts 10:28
He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."

I'd love to see where this "law" is. I've never heard of it.

All my coworkers are gentile. Most of my friends are. I've associated with and visited tons of non-Jews, and had many over to my house. Unclean, really? Where?

LookingUp
Jan 2nd 2013, 06:08 PM
This one takes the cake.


I'd love to see where this "law" is. I've never heard of it.

All my coworkers are gentile. Most of my friends are. I've associated with and visited tons of non-Jews, and had many over to my house. Unclean, really? Where?You reject the New Testament. I don't expect you to accept evidence given from it, but that's what you'll get when you're on a Christian board. I'm not going to argue with you over the historical fact of the separation among Jews and Gentiles in the first century.

WSGAC
Jan 2nd 2013, 06:25 PM
You reject the New Testament. I don't expect you to accept evidence given from it, but that's what you'll get when you're on a Christian board. I'm not going to argue with you over the historical fact of the separation among Jews and Gentiles in the first century.

But Fenris question is a valid question. Are these laws still to be obeyed by Christians? If Jesus said he did not come to annul the law, and that not one jot or tittle would pass away, then why don't Christians continue to observe the food laws, circumcision laws, sabbath laws found in Leviticus?

One cannot simply dismiss the fact that Christians are no longer bound by them because, "Christ came an fulfilled them." The point is, if the Law has not been annulled, then why don't Christians insist that these continue to be part of what it means to be God's faithful people?

Noeb
Jan 2nd 2013, 06:49 PM
I'm with Fenris. I'd like to see this law too. I've never seen it.

Fenris
Jan 2nd 2013, 06:52 PM
You reject the New Testament. I don't expect you to accept evidence given from it, but that's what you'll get when you're on a Christian board. I'm not going to argue with you over the historical fact of the separation among Jews and Gentiles in the first century.
And I'm not going to accept the NT as a basis for Jewish law. Gentiles "unclean"? Ha.

LookingUp
Jan 2nd 2013, 06:55 PM
I'm with Fenris. I'd like to see this law too. I've never seen it.Are you, too, rejecting the New Testament? Did you not read Acts 10:28? What do you think Peter meant by that? Is Peter talking about food or people, Noeb?

LookingUp
Jan 2nd 2013, 07:05 PM
But Fenris question is a valid question. Are these laws still to be obeyed by Christians?Again, Jews were never asked to stop observing these things. We see the Jerusalem Jews continuing observance. Gentiles were never asked to begin observing these things. That’s a major element of the New Covenant. Gentiles can participate without becoming Jewish.


If Jesus said he did not come to annul the law, and that not one jot or tittle would pass away, then why don't Christians continue to observe the food laws, circumcision laws, sabbath laws found in Leviticus?Some Christian Jews DO observe these things. Is there anything wrong with that? Peter and James did, so what’s the big deal? Most of the Jewish Christians who DON’T observe these things today is because they were taught by Christian Gentiles NOT to observe these things any longer. And…Matthew 5:19 comes to mind.


One cannot simply dismiss the fact that Christians are no longer bound by them because, "Christ came an fulfilled them."Bound? Who said anyone was bound by resting on the Sabbath? Why is anyone bound by observing a superior diet? Why is anyone bound by observing additional festivities throughout the year? Jews NEVER felt trapped by any of that. What were they trapped by? Sin! They were caught in a never-ending sin cycle. And the Sinai Covenant with its Mosaic Law highlighted this weakness in man.

Why did Jesus fulfill the Law? So we don't have to any longer? No! It is written that because of this he conquered death and established the New Covenant in his blood. It doesn’t say anything about any Law no longer being holy, righteous and good (Rom. 7:12).

What’s no longer binding on Israel are the curses associated with the Mosaic Law (Deut. 28:58; 29:20). Those who enter the New Covenant through faith in Christ are not bound by these curses. They will be resurrected, given the Spirit of Life and will be empowered to walk in His statutes from the heart.


The point is, if the Law as not been annulled, then why don't Christians insist that these continue to be part of what it means to be God's faithful people?Jews forsook Moses and now Christians are forsaking Jesus? Perhaps the Gentiles are coming to the end of their "fullness" (Rom. 11:25).

From what I can tell, the separation began because God wanted to keep Israel separate from the idolatrous ways of their neighbors. By the time of Jesus, an inappropriate prejudice had developed. The laws you mention (circumcision, Sabbath rest, food choices) don’t keep human beings separate. If that were true, these things would continue to separate Jews from everyone else. As Fenris points out, that doesn’t happen. Thus, it was NEVER these particular laws that kept first century Jews and Gentiles separate: it was their superior attitude.

"God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean" (Acts 10:28).

BroRog
Jan 2nd 2013, 07:49 PM
The Law of Moses contains God's moral vision. All human beings are obligated to live according to the morality found there. The Law of Moses also contains commandments, ordinances, statutes, and etc., which dictate how those living under the Mt. Sinai Covenant were to give expression to the holiness of God through ritual practice. Only those living under that covenant are obligated to express holiness through ritual. The Mt. Sinai Covenant has passed away, to be replaced by a new covenant, the chief difference being a proper inwardness among those who will be under this covenant. When the Jews are under this new covenant, they will once again give expression to their holiness through ritual practice.

WSGAC
Jan 2nd 2013, 07:49 PM
Again, Jews were never asked to stop observing these things. We see the Jerusalem Jews continuing observance. Gentiles were never asked to begin observing these things. That’s a major element of the New Covenant. Gentiles can participate without becoming Jewish.

We see them continuing to observe these laws, but the question is, are they necessary? If a Jew no longer observes these, is he/she breaking the law? Just because they may still be observed does not get at the question of whether they are necessary.

If they are not necessary, then have these elements of the law have passed away? If they haven't passed away, then of what use are they? How do they function? Christians say the Temple has passed away, and by this is meant, "The temple is no longer necessary." So too with food laws, circumcision laws, sabbath laws.


Bound? Who said anyone was bound by resting on the Sabbath?

So it's okay to work on the sabbath then? Christians don't need to observe sabbath? They can if they want, but it's not necessary?


From what I can tell, the separation began because God wanted to keep Israel separate from the idolatrous ways of their neighbors. By the time of Jesus, an inappropriate prejudice had developed. The laws you mention (circumcision, Sabbath rest, food choices) don’t keep human beings separate.

Sure they did. It was at the heart of the struggle in the early church. Some thought if you were good Christian, you should be circumcized, you shouldn't eat certain meat (ie., meat sacrificed to idols). These were marks of the covenant community, and now gentiles are to be included...gentiles who don't do these things because they are heathen. If heathens want to be members of Christ then they must put on Moses. This was the belief by many an early Jewish-Christian.

Furthermore, if there was to be no separation in principle, the actual reality was quite different. Consider Peter in Paul's letter to the Galatians. He was quite comfortable eating with Gentiles in Antioch, but when certain men came from James (Jerusalem), suddenly Peter drew back and wouldn't eat with Gentiles, and "separated himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." (Gal. 2:11 ff) Clearly there was division in the church over certain Mosaic law. Some expected Gentiles to conform, others like Paul said "No, Gentiles should not be forced to conform to Jewish laws." The matter was resolved at some point when food laws, circumcision laws, sabbath observance were loosened, and no longer regarded as necessary. This part of the law was thus annulled.

WSGAC
Jan 2nd 2013, 07:51 PM
deleted.....double post.

LookingUp
Jan 2nd 2013, 08:01 PM
The Law of Moses contains God's moral vision. All human beings are obligated to live according to the morality found there. The Law of Moses also contains commandments, ordinances, statutes, and etc., which dictate how those living under the Mt. Sinai Covenant were to give expression to the holiness of God through ritual practice. Only those living under that covenant are obligated to express holiness through ritual. The Mt. Sinai Covenant has passed away, to be replaced by a new covenant, the chief difference being a proper inwardness among those who will be under this covenant. When the Jews are under this new covenant, they will once again give expression to their holiness through ritual practice.You say the Sinai Covenant "has" passed and that it is "to be" replaced. Are you saying that today neither the Sinai Covenant is in effect nor the New Covenant established?

Let me add this thought. If they will once again give expression to the holiness of God through ritual practice according to the New Covenant, why shouldn't they continue today? The Torah that goes forth from Zion (Isa. 2:3) and the Torah written on hearts (Jer. 31:33) is the Mosaic Law.

BroRog
Jan 2nd 2013, 08:49 PM
You say the Sinai Covenant "has" passed and that it is "to be" replaced. Are you saying that today neither the Sinai Covenant is in effect nor the New Covenant established?Yes. Although Paul and James and the other Jewish apostles practiced the Jewish religion without embarrassment, Paul felt free to abstain from his practice when it served his mission to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Had Paul believed that the Mt. Sinai Covenant was still in effect, I doubt he would have abstained from his practice.

Since the New Covenant will be an agreement between Israel and God, and since I can't see evidence of that agreement yet, I say that the New Covenant is not in effect yet. But let me clarify a bit.

For some reason many people think of the Mosaic Law as the Mt. Sinai Covenant. This isn't entirely accurate. The actual Mt. Sinai Covenant is: I will be your God and you will be my people. Under this covenant, the Law of Moses defines both God's role as God, and the people's role as his people. What will God do? And what will the people do? AND this is also important, the covenant includes, as Part of God's role, protection from enemies while living in the land of promise. The New covenant will essentially be the same as the Old Covenant: I will be your God and you will be my people. Same deal. But this time, the people will actually perform their role as God's people, which will, in turn, allow God to perform his role as God.

What do I mean by "as God"? Of course, God is God and he never changes. He is always God, and he never ceases to be God. But what we are talking about is a role God decided to play. In that context, if God is being "God" to your nation, he is actively working to bless your country; he brings lots of crops, lots of children, lots of material wealth, lots of animals, lots of food. He also brings peace in the land, and protection from enemies. No enemy can credibly threaten harm to your nation; no enemy will be allowed to attack your nation; and if an enemy tried to attack, that enemy would be destroyed. When God is being "God" to a nation or a people, he is working actively and overtly for them. The covenant at Mt. Sinai involved this level of attention and care from God such that had Israel kept her agreement, she would have prospered materially, and lived in peace among the nations.

This is the promise contained in the New Covenant also. When Israel returns to the land (which has taken place) she will enter into covenant with God again. And this time, she will keep her part and God will keep his.


Let me add this thought. If they will once again give expression to the holiness of God through ritual practice according to the New Covenant, why shouldn't they continue today? The Torah that goes forth from Zion (Isa. 2:3) and the Torah written on hearts (Jer. 31:33) is the Mosaic Law.I see no reason why an individual Jew can't give expression to his or her love of God through ritual practice. Many of us have our own rituals or practices in which we give expression to our love of God. And we continue with a particular lifestyle indicative of a commitment to holiness.

However, the covenant is a national covenant, an agreement between God and a people living in the land of promise. The agreement will be: I will be your God and you will be my people. And when the New Covenant is made, God will be "God" to Israel in an overt and obvious way. He will bless her materially and he will protect her from enemies. I can't say whether God will do this for Jews living outside of Israel. Perhaps he will. All I can say is what God has revealed about his future plans.

One more thing, Paul says that the Gentiles are now grafted into the cultivated olive tree. If I understand Paul's analogy correctly, his point is to say that some Gentiles, those who believe God's word, are also making a personal covenant with God: I will be your God and you will be one of the people of God. However, this promise does not involve a promise to live in the land of promise and experience material blessing and protection from enemies. Being grafted onto the cultivated tree is beneficial in the eternal sense. When God is "God" to us, he will grant us eternal life and permanent shalom among the people of God in the final age.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 12:10 AM
BroRog, fantastic post.

I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you’ve written. Let me describe what I am seeing. Scripture seems to teach that the Sinai Covenant with its Mosaic Law would transform into the New Covenant with its Mosaic Law. I don’t think of the Sinai Covenant as something that would be abolished but as something that would be renewed. Because one sacrifice for sins for all time has been offered and empowerment is promised to walk in His statutes by the Spirit, any activity required by the Law (expression of God’s holiness) that relates to weakness of the flesh is enacted in conformity with the New Covenant rather than in conformity with the Sinai Covenant (i.e. offering time after time the same sacrifices which can never take away sins). I see “empowerment to walk in His statutes” in your statement, “But this time, the people will actually perform their role as God’s people.”

It doesn’t appear that you and I are seeing things very differently except for perhaps in what the role the Body of Christ has in the New Covenant. And perhaps in the details of how the New Covenant with Israel plays out in the future.

You suggest that the Body of Christ’s involvement with the New Covenant is related to the granting of eternal life and permanent shalom among the people of God in the final age. I agree. Do you see the Body of Christ living on earth with Israel when all Israel receives the blessings of the New Covenant? Are we resurrected to live during that time? Also, don’t you agree that Israel, too, will partake in eternal life and experience shalom in the final age?

And what of the Jew who enters into the New Covenant through the Body of Christ? Doesn’t he, too, get to participate in all the things you described for the New Covenant with the nation of Israel?

Finally, how will the New Covenant play out in the future? You mention, “crops, children, wealth, food, protection from enemies.” Is there any chance that what was once a possible reality for Israel will look differently since she rejected Messiah after his ascension?

BroRog
Jan 3rd 2013, 12:31 AM
Do you see the Body of Christ living on earth with Israel when all Israel receives the blessings of the New Covenant? Are we resurrected to live during that time?Yes. I think so.


Also, don’t you agree that Israel, too, will partake in eternal life and experience shalom in the final age?Yes.


And what of the Jew who enters into the New Covenant through the Body of Christ?Same as any child of God.


Doesn’t he, too, get to participate in all the things you described for the New Covenant with the nation of Israel? As I say, I'm not sure. God will make the covenant with the nation living in the land of promise. I don't know if the material blessings will be given to those living in other countries. Perhaps.


Finally, how will the New Covenant play out in the future? You mention, “crops, children, wealth, food, protection from enemies.” Is there any chance that what was once a possible reality for Israel will look differently since she rejected Messiah after his ascension?Just as the Babylonian exile was punishment for Israel, so too was the "Indoeuropean" exile (if you will.) Israel has already suffered her punishment and as we know, God's mercy is greater than his wrath. She is back in the land now and he will continue to bless her in ways we can't imagine yet. I think it is safe to affirm Joel's word to Israel, "never again."

Noeb
Jan 3rd 2013, 12:44 AM
Are you, too, rejecting the New Testament? Did you not read Acts 10:28? What do you think Peter meant by that? Is Peter talking about food or people, Noeb?Are you for real? Fenris asked where this law is......

"it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him"

it's not in the NT. The NT isn't the Law. So where in the Law, is this law? It's a simple question.

JFB Commentary
"Act 10:28 Ye know it is ... unlawful ... for ... a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation, etc. — There was no express prohibition to this effect, and to a Certain extent intercourse was certainly kept up. (See the Gospel history, towards the end). But intimate social fellowship was not practiced, as being adverse to the spirit of the law."

Noeb
Jan 3rd 2013, 03:40 AM
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Strange wording. Why doesn't it say it is written or the law says, etc....?

Here's the only other instance the word is found
1Pe 4:3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

Peter basically said, this is what we've been doing but God showed me we are wrong!
It's not in the Law LookingUp.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 03:47 AM
It's not in the Law LookingUp.I never said it was. I'll let you know if I find out more, though.

By the way, this is what I wrote about it:
From what I can tell, the separation began because God wanted to keep Israel separate from the idolatrous ways of their neighbors. By the time of Jesus, an inappropriate prejudice had developed. The laws you mention (circumcision, Sabbath rest, food choices) don’t keep human beings separate. If that were true, these things would continue to separate Jews from everyone else. As Fenris points out, that doesn’t happen. Thus, it was NEVER these particular laws that kept first century Jews and Gentiles separate: it was their superior attitude.

"God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean" (Acts 10:28).

Noeb
Jan 3rd 2013, 03:57 AM
Well, all we did is ask where the law is. All you had to do is say it doesn't exist.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 04:05 AM
Well, all we did is ask where the law is. All you had to do is say it doesn't exist.I think there's been a misunderstanding. I never thought to say there was no law, because I never looked at Peter's comment from that point of view, and so I didn't recognize that that was what Fenris was doing. To be honest, his mocking comments have the effect of distracting from any genuine question he may ask. Sometimes, I can't distinguish between his sarcasm and his genuineness.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 04:53 AM
Yes. I think so.

Yes.

Same as any child of God.

As I say, I'm not sure. God will make the covenant with the nation living in the land of promise. I don't know if the material blessings will be given to those living in other countries. Perhaps.

Just as the Babylonian exile was punishment for Israel, so too was the "Indoeuropean" exile (if you will.) Israel has already suffered her punishment and as we know, God's mercy is greater than his wrath. She is back in the land now and he will continue to bless her in ways we can't imagine yet. I think it is safe to affirm Joel's word to Israel, "never again."Thanks for the reply. It appears we're in a sort of interim between covenants. But since it's the same Law that will be written on hearts that was given at Mt. Sinai, it seems reasonable to assume that the practices and rituals that will give expression to God's holiness in the messianic age will resemble previous practices and rituals.

I realize that since Israel is redeemed from the curses associated with the Mosaic Law of the Sinai Covenant, not observing the Sabbath, for example, is not held against a Christian Jew in the way it was with the Sinai Covenant. But considering that the same practices will take place in the messianic age and considering Jesus’ words (Mt. 5:19), it seems prudent to keep the commandments even now.

BroRog
Jan 3rd 2013, 06:06 AM
Thanks for the reply. It appears we're in a sort of interim between covenants. But since it's the same Law that will be written on hearts that was given at Mt. Sinai, it seems reasonable to assume that the practices and rituals that will give expression to God's holiness in the messianic age will resemble previous practices and rituals.I can't say with any specificity, except to say that Ezekiel seems to agree.


I realize that since Israel is redeemed from the curses associated with the Mosaic Law of the Sinai Covenant, not observing the Sabbath, for example, is not held against a Christian Jew in the way it was with the Sinai Covenant. But considering that the same practices will take place in the messianic age and considering Jesus’ words (Mt. 5:19), it seems prudent to keep the commandments even now.I see nothing wrong with the Jewish praxis if one is loving God and giving him honor and thanksgiving. But one must remember, the covenant was kept by the nation at large, which required cooperative and communal activity. No matter how devout or pious, a Jewish person can not keep the covenant by himself. Undoubtedly those Jews who love and honor God have found meaningful things to do, but until a temple is built much of Leviticus is out of reach.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 06:24 AM
I can't say with any specificity, except to say that Ezekiel seems to agree.

I see nothing wrong with the Jewish praxis if one is loving God and giving him honor and thanksgiving. But one must remember, the covenant was kept by the nation at large, which required cooperative and communal activity. No matter how devout or pious, a Jewish person can not keep the covenant by himself. Undoubtedly those Jews who love and honor God have found meaningful things to do, but until a temple is built much of Leviticus is out of reach.Very helpful input, BroRog, thank you. Let me narrow this down. If a Jew considering Jesus comes to you and asks, “Must I continue to observe Moses the best I can (even though I understand that not being in the established land makes many things impossible) or am I supposed to forsake Moses?” What would you say?

Do you think that many of the Churches today are doing a disservice to incoming Jews by implying that the Mosaic Law is abolished and they should refrain from observing it?

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 07:34 AM
We see them continuing to observe these laws, but the question is, are they necessary?...James made it sound necessary (Acts 21:21-24). But I don’t believe it was necessary for the same reasons. Adherence to Mosaic Law was what was expected of Israel in order to live continuously in the land of promise according to the conditions of the Sinai Covenant.

Adherence to the Mosaic Law is what WILL happen with Israel (“I will write My law on their heart”) and they WILL live continuously in the land of promise according to the New Covenant.

The Jerusalem disciples’ adherence to Mosaic Law is my major reason for exploring all of this. They were experiencing the interim between two covenants, yet they continued adherence to Mosaic Law. Shouldn’t Jews coming to faith in Jesus follow their example?


…If they haven't passed away, then of what use are they? How do they function?They function the same way they always have: to give expression to God’s holiness.


Christians say the Temple has passed away, and by this is meant, "The temple is no longer necessary." So too with food laws, circumcision laws, sabbath laws.The passing of the temple is a signal of the renewal of the Sinai Covenant fulfilled in the New Covenant. The system involving the High Priest with animal sacrifices is replaced by the High Priest, Jesus, and the one sacrifice for sins for all time, Jesus. What do diet, circumcision and Sabbath have to do with this?


So it's okay to work on the sabbath then? Christians don't need to observe sabbath? They can if they want, but it's not necessary? “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27).

“Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day observes it for the Lord, and he who eats does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God” (Rom. 14:5-7).

“To his own master he stands or falls” (Rom. 14:4).


Sure they did.If it was circumcision, Sabbath and food choices that kept people separate, why don’t those same things keep us separate today?


Some thought if you were good Christian, you should be circumcized, you shouldn't eat certain meat (ie., meat sacrificed to idols).Is that about flesh and food or attitude of the heart?


These were marks of the covenant community,…They were considered marks of the Sinai Covenant community, but Paul corrects them and tells them physical circumcision was NEVER an automatic covenant-in with God (Rom. 2).


…The matter was resolved at some point when food laws, circumcision laws, sabbath observance were loosened, and no longer regarded as necessary. This part of the law was thus annulled.The law was never annulled. It was brought to light that under the New Covenant, Gentiles partake in the blessings without becoming Jewish.

WSGAC
Jan 3rd 2013, 12:37 PM
The law was never annulled. It was brought to light that under the New Covenant, Gentiles partake in the blessings without becoming Jewish.


...Is that about flesh and food or attitude of the heart?


Leviticus 11:9ff.

9 ‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat. 10 But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an *abomination* to you. 11 They shall be an *abomination* to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an *abomination*. 12 Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an *abomination* to you. KJV

Please note the astericks on *abomination*; Hebrew - unclean

Do you observe these kosher laws? Should a Christian observe them? If not, then they have become optional, and no longer proscriptive. Indeed, they have passed away. "Attitude of the heart" does not answer the question. These are proscriptions....meaning do NOT eat these things. This is why Peter was so adamant in Acts 10, and did not want to eat what was proscribed by the Law.

Does a proper "attitude of the heart" mean I can now do what is proscribed by God's law?...any part of the law? How about adultery, or coveting my neighbor's property? If I tell myself I can now do these things as long as it's with a proper "attitude of the heart" does this mean I can now commit adultery? I may fool myself into believing such nonsense, but I have no doubt my Christian brothers and sisters would tell me I don't have a proper understanding of "attitude of the heart."

The fact is, Christians regard certain elements of the Mosaic law as proscriptive, while other elements have been jettisoned.

RabbiKnife
Jan 3rd 2013, 02:03 PM
No, Christians should regard the Mosaic Law as having been fulfilled, completed, finalized, by the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus for payment of all sin for all time.

The New Covenant is now in effect, for all people.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 06:22 PM
I’m not sure what you’re saying but I’ll try again. First of all, the Law was never annulled or abolished. Jesus said so. His teachings and life demonstrated obedience to the letter of the Law and to the spiritual intent of the Law. Essentially, Jesus exalted and magnified the Mosaic Law. Why? Because this is the Law that will go forth from Zion and be written on the hearts of Israel. Does that mean ceremony will be “written on hearts”? I don’t know how it will work, but if ceremony expressed God’s holiness in the Sinai Covenant, I won’t rule out ceremony expressing God’s holiness in the New Covenant. Additionally, there is Scripture that suggests ceremony such as observing Sabbath and festivals of the LORD continue in the messianic kingdom.

Secondly, when I was speaking of attitude of the heart, I was talking about first century Christian Jews pushing their agenda onto Gentiles because their hearts were in the wrong place. They were stuck in the Sinai Covenant way of things where Gentiles had to convert. It hadn’t sunk in that Gentiles were welcome to the New Covenant through faith alone.

So, should a Jew observe kosher laws, for example? I would if I grew up Jewish and this had always been the way to express God’s holiness for my family. Nowhere does God say these kinds of things will be ended for Israel with the New Covenant. Things related to the Levitical High Priest and sacrifice for sin, yes, but not these other kinds of things.

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2013, 06:27 PM
So, should a Jew observe kosher laws, for example? I would if I grew up Jewish and this had always been the way to express God’s holiness for my family. Nowhere does God say these kinds of things will be ended for Israel with the New Covenant.
SO Jews have to follow the law and gentiles don't. It's like there are two covenants in effect at the same time.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 06:44 PM
SO Jews have to follow the law and gentiles don't. It's like there are two covenants in effect at the same time.The Jewish folks I know who continue to observe enjoy it, so I'm not sure what you mean by "have to" as if it's a burden.

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2013, 06:47 PM
The Jewish folks I know who continue to observe enjoy it, so I'm not sure what you mean by "have to" as if it's a burden.

We're not talking about "fun". Either it's a covenantal condition, or it isn't. If some people have to follow it and some don't, then there are two covenants.

WSGAC
Jan 3rd 2013, 06:59 PM
So, should a Jew observe kosher laws, for example? I would if I grew up Jewish and this had always been the way to express God’s holiness for my family. Nowhere does God say these kinds of things will be ended for Israel with the New Covenant. Things related to the Levitical High Priest and sacrifice for sin, yes, but not these other kinds of things.

If you would have grown up Jewish you would have obeyed them?? So since you're not Jewish, you don't have to?

Do you do this with the rest of the Law? Suppose I said, "If I would have grown up Jewish I would have obeyed the Law where it states, 'You shall have no other gods before me,' but since I didn't grow up in a Jewish home it's okay for me a Gentile to have other gods." How would you respond?

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 07:06 PM
If you would have grown up Jewish you would have obeyed them?? So since you're not Jewish, you don't have to?That’s what the book of Acts teaches, so, yes, I’d follow the example set there.


Do you do this with the rest of the Law? Suppose I said, "If I would have grown up Jewish I would have obeyed the Law where it states, 'You shall have no other gods before me,' but since I didn't grow up in a Jewish home it's okay for me a Gentile to have other gods." How would you respond?One purpose of the Mosaic Law was to express God’s holiness for all the surrounding nations to be drawn to God and desire to live a life pleasing to Him. It wasn’t so all the surrounding nations would become Jewish.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 07:10 PM
We're not talking about "fun". Either it's a covenantal condition, or it isn't. If some people have to follow it and some don't, then there are two covenants.
I’m not sure if some of the rituals within the Sinai Covenant will also be part of the New Covenant. Some of the prophecies about the messianic kingdom indicate that Sabbath observance and festivals of the LORD will continue, so during this interim between covenants, I think it’s be prudent for a Christian Jew to continue what they’ve always known in how they express God’s holiness. I’d follow the example set by the book of Acts.

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2013, 07:14 PM
I’m not sure if some of the rituals within the Sinai Covenant will also be part of the New Covenant. Some of the prophecies about the messianic kingdom indicate that Sabbath observance and festivals of the LORD will continue, so during this interim between covenants, I think it’s be prudent for a Christian Jew to continue what they’ve always known in how they express God’s holiness. I’d follow the example set by the book of Acts.

This is no answer at all. Either it's a covenantal condition, or it isn't. If some people have to follow it and some don't, then there are two covenants.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 07:16 PM
This is no answer at all. Either it's a covenantal condition, or it isn't. If some people have to follow it and some don't, then there are two covenants.That's what it will be like in the messianic kingdom. Gentiles won't be Jewish.

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2013, 07:18 PM
That's what it will be like in the messianic kingdom. Gentiles won't be Jewish.

And how about now? one covenant, or two?

WSGAC
Jan 3rd 2013, 07:24 PM
One purpose of the Mosaic Law was to express God’s holiness for all the surrounding nations to be drawn to God and desire to live a life pleasing to Him. It wasn’t so all the surrounding nations would become Jewish.

No, it was about keeping covenant with God. Yes, Israel would be seen as a peculiar people for all their practices, but keeping the law was how they kept covenant with God. These were commandments, not suggestions. And the terms were pretty clear:

See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse— the blessing if you obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the Lord your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known. Deuteronomy 11:26-28

So I repeat my statement and question again from my previous post, "If I would have grown up Jewish I would have obeyed the Law where it states, 'You shall have no other gods before me,' but since I didn't grow up in a Jewish home it's okay for me a Gentile Christian to have other gods."

How would you respond to this?

BroRog
Jan 3rd 2013, 07:35 PM
Very helpful input, BroRog, thank you. Let me narrow this down. If a Jew considering Jesus comes to you and asks, “Must I continue to observe Moses the best I can (even though I understand that not being in the established land makes many things impossible) or am I supposed to forsake Moses?” What would you say?I give them the same advice Paul gave his fellow Jews.


1Cor. 7:17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called [when he was already] circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised . 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [what matters is] the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that [condition] in which he was called.


I think it would safe for me to advise a Jew to trust God and become a follower of Jesus, but with regard to his Jewish practices and customs, don't worry about it. Don't change. Keep practicing your ways and customs and festivals and remain a Jew. That's what Paul says. If he was called while circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised, that is, let him not renounce his circumcision as if it was nothing. A Jew doesn't need to give up his or her Jewishness in order to accept Jesus as rabbi, accept him as lord, believe that he is God's son and believe that he is the messiah. Stay Jewish. No problem.


Do you think that many of the Churches today are doing a disservice to incoming Jews by implying that the Mosaic Law is abolished and they should refrain from observing it?It's possible. I think we need to be very cautious because we don't want to leave anyone with the impression that God has abandoned his moral vision or that God allows laxity, or that God doesn't care about righteousness anymore. Again I turn to Paul for advice. He tells the Roman church to give room to Jewish members to practice according to conscience, especially those who love God and want to please him. If someone says to me, "I rest on the seventh day of the week because I love God and I want to honor him" I wouldn't have a problem with that. Paul wouldn't either. He says that each one of us is accountable to the Lord and each one of us stands or falls according to the Lord. I am not to judge him for his ritual observance and he is not to condemn me for mine.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 07:44 PM
No, it was about keeping covenant with God. Yes, Israel would be seen as a peculiar people for all their practices, but keeping the law was how they kept covenant with God. These were commandments, not suggestions. ...See BroRog's post above.

By the way, there are no curses within the New Covenant. God says He will write His Torah on their hearts and they will follow His Torah from their hearts.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 07:52 PM
And how about now? one covenant, or two?It appears we're in a transition between the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant. Jesus is the new High Priest and sacrifice, and the temple has been destroyed. I believe this signifies a revamping of the Sinai Covenant with the passing away of that system (i.e. high priest/sacrifice for sin) and emergence of Christ as High Priest. Because of Israel's rejection of Christ after his ascension, the full implementation of the New Covenant has been put on hold. Paul writes that after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, all Israel will be saved through the New Covenant with Israel and He will take away their sins.

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2013, 08:00 PM
It appears we're in a transition between the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant. .
How many covenants are in effect right now?

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 08:25 PM
How many covenants are in effect right now?
One. The New Covenant is effectual but not operating at full capacity. The caterpillar is still in the cocoon. We’re living in an “already not yet” reality where the kingdom is breaking forth into the present age like the sun over the horizon. All things are already “put under his feet,” but we do not yet see all things put under his feet (Heb. 2:7-8). So, although the kingdom of God is already here, the New Covenant already effectual for all with faith, and Christ already High Priest, the full benefits of the kingdom have not yet been ushered in.

RabbiKnife
Jan 3rd 2013, 08:31 PM
Personally, I find that I'm experiencing all the benefits of the New Covenant, so I'm not sure exactly how it's "not operating at full capacity."

The New Covenant is about the payment for sin and the restoration of relationship with God.

Everything else is just icing on the cake.

Fenris
Jan 3rd 2013, 08:54 PM
One. The New Covenant is effectual but not operating at full capacity.
If you have to engage in this kind of verbal and mental gymnastics, well...

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 08:58 PM
Personally, I find that I'm experiencing all the benefits of the New Covenant, so I'm not sure exactly how it's "not operating at full capacity."

The New Covenant is about the payment for sin and the restoration of relationship with God.

Everything else is just icing on the cake.I wouldn't call the redemption of my body, "icing." :)

And not only this, but also ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:23)

For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven (2 Cor. 5:2).

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 09:08 PM
If you have to engage in this kind of verbal and mental gymnastics, well...Well, you asked. And many, many Christians have this understanding, because it's clear we don't see the kind of spiritual manifestation described in Jeremiah, yet Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." And Paul said we are servants of a new covenant of the Spirit.

Nick
Jan 4th 2013, 02:46 AM
Well, you asked. And many, many Christians have this understanding, because it's clear we don't see the kind of spiritual manifestation described in Jeremiah, yet Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." And Paul said we are servants of a new covenant of the Spirit.

You do realize Fenris doesn't share the same belief system as Christians regarding the new covenant? Why argue the Christian understanding of the new covenant when the person you're arguing with doesn't believe in the new covenant? It's seems senseless unless you're trying to convert him.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 03:18 AM
You do realize Fenris doesn't share the same belief system as Christians regarding the new covenant? Why argue the Christian understanding of the new covenant when the person you're arguing with doesn't believe in the new covenant? It's seems senseless unless you're trying to convert him.I'm not in the habit of ignoring another's question, even if they are "unconvertible." ;-)