Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 32 of 32

Thread: Was Paul a false prophet?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This is a bit convoluted, because we seem to be partly battling over semantics, but let me see if I can unravel it.
    1) I do *not* accept that Jesus' statements about loving God and loving our neighbor is the "Law of Christ" in the NT sense. He was still speaking under the Law. Rather, for me the "Law of Christ" is the NT principle of living by Christ alone, by Faith alone, instead of by outdated rituals of the Law, now completed in Christ.
    So you are saying that actually we do not need to Love God and Love our neighbour as ourselves?
    Further you think Jesus gave teaching which would be IRRELEVANT the moment He died and rose again?

    When he summarized the Law in two commandments he was not yet, at that time, removing the obligation of keeping the *entire Law!* Rather, he was only *summarizing* the entire Law, not yet revoking all 613 requirements.
    So there is no requirement to live godly lives?

    2) I do see a uniformity in the eternal Law of God for Man in the sense that the OT Law was purely a transitory form of that Law. The Law of Moses was a temporal form of the eternal Law of God, only dealing with the need for Israel's forgiveness in a somewhat superficial way.
    Actually it doesn't deal with the need for forgiveness, except to point us (and them) to live by faith, which some got and others did not.

    The Law of Moses added to the eternal Law of God certain requirements in order to preserve Israel in a covenant relationship with Himself until Christ came and won eternal redemption for them. At that point there was no longer any need for temporary rituals of redemption. All that remained was the eternal Law of God.
    So you like to make things up, and you have Moses as ADDING to God's Law. Wow! Perhaps I misunderstand you and you mean that God added to God's Law things which were unnecessary, or things which would work for a limited period of time, until He decided to kill Himself even though He didn't need to because forgiveness (and therefore life) could be received through the Law.

    The purpose of this covenant of Law was to show the world a necessary connection between doing good works and repentance from evil works. Sins that are not repented of break a relationship between God and Man. And God wanted to show the world the undesirability of this. The temporary rituals of the Law showed this until Christ came.
    So where does it talk about repentance in these commandments Moses gave? Where does it speak about good works? Curious as I don't see them, but perhaps they are there.

    3) It isn't accurate to make the distinctions you claim about my position on the matter of the Law "giving life." I've been completely consistent on the point that obeying the Law gave Israel life, both in the present and in the future sense. It also gave to Israel the hope of Eternal Life.
    I agree you have been consistently claiming that obeying the Law gives life, and I have consistently highlighted the error that claim is.
    There is a distinction that I made between the Law of God and that which Moses was given, for that given to Moses was an expression of the Law of God for a society to live by. IOW the Law God gave to Moses was a way for the people of Israel to live in the Promised Land, and remain right with God and each other.
    We don't live in the Promised Land and we have had the obligations of the Law met in Jesus. This does not mean we therefore live as we want, but instead are also held to live holy lives, which means living according to the Law of God, which underpinned the Law given to Moses and summarised by Jesus.

    4) Your distinction between "retaining life" and "gaining life" is and has not been a part of my argument. This is a distinction in your mind.
    In my view, the life God gives in response to Israel's obedience is both immediate and ongoing. What exist immediately are the spiritual life and material blessing God gives in the present in response to Israel's obedience. What God gives in the future is a continuation of the same, along with the hope of Eternal Life. I have not changed my position on this.
    I know the distinction is NOT in your mind. You seem NOT to understand the difference.
    God did NOT give life in response to Israel's obedience, God chose to give Life to Abraham as a promise and a gift. However in order to retain that gift and see that gift being enacted in a person's life required keeping the Law, but the Law NEVER gave that Life in the first place.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,632

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    So you are saying that actually we do not need to Love God and Love our neighbour as ourselves?
    Further you think Jesus gave teaching which would be IRRELEVANT the moment He died and rose again?
    In a sense yes--the Law became passe at the point where Christ died. All works under the Law became moot.

    On the other hand, the Law remains useful as a teacher even in the NT era. The Law was in effect a temporal form of God's eternal Law, and as such pointed to Law that remains valid for us.

    We do not obey the command of Jesus to love one another out of duty to the Law of Moses, but rather, in recognition that the Law of Moses pointed to the New Covenant. And under that Covenant we are told the same, to love one another. In effect we are following the same Law, but a different Covenant!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So there is no requirement to live godly lives?
    There is no requirement to obey *any law* within the scope of the Old Covenant. However, inasmuch as the OT Law pointed to God's Eternal Law, yes, we were being directed to live godly lives always. This distinction between outdated testimony and current law may seem nitpicky, because they sometimes say the same things. But I believe it's important to distinguish between the temporal features of the old Law and the Eternal Law of God existing in all times. The moral principles of the Law of Moses are subsumed under the category of God's Eternal Law.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually it doesn't deal with the need for forgiveness, except to point us (and them) to live by faith, which some got and others did not.
    I believe the sacrifices were rituals that spoke of God's redemption of Israel through His forgiveness of their sin. The Law was replete with these redemption rituals. Indeed, Hebrews refers to the effect everything was sanctioned by blood. That is indicative of the need for God's mercy needing to be shown to Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So you like to make things up, and you have Moses as ADDING to God's Law. Wow! Perhaps I misunderstand you and you mean that God added to God's Law things which were unnecessary, or things which would work for a limited period of time, until He decided to kill Himself even though He didn't need to because forgiveness (and therefore life) could be received through the Law.
    God added to His Eternal Law things that only superficially cleansed Israel from sin until Christ came and won for them final redemption. That's when the Old Covenant went away, with its 613 rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So where does it talk about repentance in these commandments Moses gave? Where does it speak about good works? Curious as I don't see them, but perhaps they are there.
    Every time the Law tells Israel to *do* something, the Law is speaking of "good works." And every aspect of the redemption rituals, such as animal sacrifice and water purification, referred to the need of human repentance. We acknowledge that our carnal nature is corrupt and requires some kind of dispensation to continue in relationship with God. The redemption rituals are acted by men of good faith who in obeying them acknowledge their need in this respect.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I agree you have been consistently claiming that obeying the Law gives life, and I have consistently highlighted the error that claim is.
    There is a distinction that I made between the Law of God and that which Moses was given, for that given to Moses was an expression of the Law of God for a society to live by. IOW the Law God gave to Moses was a way for the people of Israel to live in the Promised Land, and remain right with God and each other.
    We don't live in the Promised Land and we have had the obligations of the Law met in Jesus. This does not mean we therefore live as we want, but instead are also held to live holy lives, which means living according to the Law of God, which underpinned the Law given to Moses and summarised by Jesus.
    I don't see a whole lot wrong with that, unless I misunderstand. I do, however, see Christ's fulfillment of the Law slightly different than your version, although it is not a serious difference. I see Jesus as fulfilling the Law not by *doing the 613 laws of Moses perfectly.* While it's true that it was important that he be perfect it was equally true that he did not need to live by the Law of Moses at all, since he was perfect, and the Law was drawn up for imperfect humans.

    Rather, the way Jesus fulfilled the Law was by becoming the real substance of what the redemption rituals merely symbolized. He completed the temporary provision of the Law with a final provision.

    I do not see what error you are pointing out when I say that the Law gave life to Israel? It did not give Eternal Life, but it did give Spiritual Life. Do you understand the distinction I'm making?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I know the distinction is NOT in your mind. You seem NOT to understand the difference.
    God did NOT give life in response to Israel's obedience, God chose to give Life to Abraham as a promise and a gift. However in order to retain that gift and see that gift being enacted in a person's life required keeping the Law, but the Law NEVER gave that Life in the first place.
    This is confusing to me. You say God gave Life to Abraham as a "gift." Then you say an Israeli had to "keep the Law" to "retain the gift" of Life. And then you saw the Law "never gave that Life."

    If you expect me to understand your logic, you're going to have to explain this apparent contradiction? If Life was given to Abraham, and this Life was retained by Israel through the Law, then isn't Life being "retained," or "given" through the Law?

    That's exactly how the Scriptures describe it. By keeping the Law Israel obtains Life. They get it, they retain it, and some time in the future they will always have it. This comes by obeying God's Eternal Law, which results in the receipt of Christ's Redemption.

    None of this has a thing to do, however, with earning our own Salvation. By keeping God's Eternal Law we show our wish to receive Christ's Redemption. By ignoring God's Eternal Law we are rejecting the word of God and Christ, God's Son. And when we cut ourselves off from the Eternal Law of God, we cut ourselves off from Christ's spiritual Life.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. False Christ or false prophet?
    By Old man in forum Test Posts
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Jul 22nd 2014, 12:50 AM
  2. False Christ or false prophet?
    By Old man in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Jul 10th 2014, 04:04 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •