Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Holiness

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
    Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, so you should interpret "fulfilling the Law" in the same way that you interpret "fulfilling the Prophets". That of course leads to problems if prophecies in regard to his second coming would be done away with.
    Have you heard of merism? Did Jesus come to fulfill the prophecies already come to pass before his birth?

    The phrase "to fulfill the law" was a rabbinic term that means to explain or interpret law. In a synagogue, a rabbi take his place on the Moses Seat where he would read from one of the scrolls and then interpret it or clarify its meaning, thereby fulfilling the law. When Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, he was not referring to a once and for all event, but rather that he came to explain or interpret the law, which is precisely what he spent the rest of Matthew 5 doing.
    Please explain why we should project this rabbinic term onto what Jesus said.

    Someone who is righteous is someone who practices righteousness, so when we are declared by faith by God to be righteous, that means we are declared to be someone who practices righteousness.
    We are declared righteous - of justified - by faith, not by our works in practicing righteousness.

    How do we practice righteousness? It just so happens that God gave holy, righteous, and good instructions to Moses for how to do that.
    The Mosaic Law is hardly the only place where instructions are given.

    As Ephesians 2:11-22 makes clear... Everything that applied to God's chosen people then applies to God's chosen people today.
    That hardly follows. Rather, the wall of separation that distinguished Jew from non-Jew was destroyed in Him.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      You might actually try to be rational. There was no rationality in post #13, only venom.
      There is, but you don't care because you're just here to defend Leonhard from the evil bad Paprika.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
        Have you heard of merism? Did Jesus come to fulfill the prophecies already come to pass before his birth?
        From my understanding, a merism is a phrase that's used to encompass more than its parts, not less than its parts. Furthermore, "fulfill" is used in contrast with "abolish" so it shouldn't be interpreted to mean the same thing.

        Please explain why we should project this rabbinic term onto what Jesus said.
        Jesus was a Jewish rabbi with Jewish disciples who interacted with other Jewish rabbis. We should use the Jewish cultural context in which the events of the Bible take place to help us to understand it.

        We are declared righteous - of justified - by faith, not by our works in practicing righteousness.
        Indeed, I never did or would suggest otherwise. I'm talking about how a Christian should behave after they are justified.

        Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

        Paul could have equivalently said that we are declared righteous by grace through faith, not by practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness. The practicing righteousness comes after the being declared righteous, not before, so order was very important to Paul.

        The Mosaic Law is hardly the only place where instructions are given.
        In trying to figure out how to practice righteousness, we should look at all instructions that God gave for how to do that. The instructions that are given elsewhere are all in accordance with Mosaic Law.

        That hardly follows. Rather, the wall of separation that distinguished Jew from non-Jew was destroyed in Him.
        It doesn't follow that Paul would say that we are created in Messiah to do good works and then a few verse later that Messiah destroyed his holy, righteous, and good instructions for how to do good works. What is being referred to in verse 15 is likely the man-made dividing wall at the Temple that separated Jews from worshipping together with Gentiles in violation of Leviticus 19:34 and the man-made rules that prevented Jews from associating with Gentiles that Peter talked about in Acts 10:28. In any case, what was destroyed allowed Gentiles to become part of Israel, not replace it. Very consistently it was man-made laws that were ruled against while the Torah was upheld.
        "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
          From my understanding, a merism is a phrase that's used to encompass more than its parts, not less than its parts.
          Quite, it referred to Scripture as a general whole, not that Jesus would fulfill all of the Law and Prophets.

          Furthermore, "fulfill" is used in contrast with "abolish" so it shouldn't be interpreted to mean the same thing.
          Strawman. As you well know I've already addressed this: that the reason Christians aren't under the Mosaic law isn't because Jesus abolished it.

          Jesus was a Jewish rabbi with Jewish disciples who interacted with other Jewish rabbis. We should use the Jewish cultural context in which the events of the Bible take place to help us to understand it.
          The chronology is important. When does this rabbinic term date from? Why should we adopt it over the obvious meaning of the Greek?

          Indeed, I never did or would suggest otherwise. I'm talking about how a Christian should behave after they are justified.

          Paul could have equivalently said that we are declared righteous by grace through faith, not by practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness. The practicing righteousness comes after the being declared righteous, not before, so order was very important to Paul.
          Precisely. And what did you say?
          when we are declared by faith by God to be righteous, that means we are declared to be someone who practices righteousness
          You're the one who mixed up the chronology: when we were justified we were not, up to that point, practicing righteousness.

          In trying to figure out how to practice righteousness, we should look at all instructions that God gave for how to do that. The instructions that are given elsewhere are all in accordance with Mosaic Law.
          Except that we have died to the Law.

          It doesn't follow that Paul would say that we are created in Messiah to do good works and then a few verse later that Messiah destroyed his holy, righteous, and good instructions for how to do good works. What is being referred to in verse 15 is likely the man-made dividing wall at the Temple that separated Jews from worshipping together with Gentiles in violation of Leviticus 19:34 and the man-made rules that prevented Jews from associating with Gentiles that Peter talked about in Acts 10:28.
          I repeat myself: I've already addressed this; Ephesians emphasises circumcision as synecdoche for the law that divides: circumcision as part of Mosaic Law, and your reading of 'man-made laws' is mere eisegesis

          In any case, what was destroyed allowed Gentiles to become part of Israel, not replace it. Very consistently it was man-made laws that were ruled against while the Torah was upheld.
          Nonsense. The food laws no longer apply (as repeated in many texts) and the sacrificial laws (Hebrews) all don't apply to Christians after Christ had completed his work.

          As Paul has pointed out in Galatians and Romans, we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, and not just the man-made regulations.

          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          The best way to cut through the 'Paul was talking about oral law, not the Mosaic Law' nonsense is to go to Galatians 3 where Paul speaks of the Law given to Moses 430 years after the promises to Abraham, the Law that was a guardian, but which those in Christ are no longer under.

          Then one goes to Romans 7 to show why Christians are not under the Law: not because the Law is abolished or destroyed (so the Matthew 5 objection fails) but because we have died to the Law, and here to support this point Paul clearly refers to the marriage law from Mosaic Law, not oral law.
          Cut your crap.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Paprika
            Strawman. As you well know I've already addressed this: that the reason Christians aren't under the Mosaic law isn't because Jesus abolished it.
            Regardless of your interpretation of Romans 7 and Galatians 3, in trying to understand what Jesus meant by "fulfill", we shouldn't interpret it to mean the same thing as abolish. Furthermore, we should let the words of Jesus inform the words of Paul, not the other way around. If Paul contradicts Jesus, then Jesus trumps Paul, but fortunately it doesn't come to that, because Romans 7 is talking about being set free from the aspect of the law that condemns us.

            It is the husband who is free from the Law by dying. Paul's point is that (but I repeat myself) "the Law is binding on a person only as long as he lives". The wife is freed only because the husband died and they were previously bound together by Law. That's it.
            No, Paul makes the point in 7:2-3 that it is the woman who is bound by the law as long as her husband lives and that she would be be called an adulteress if she were to live with other man while he was still alive, she is the one who is freed from that law after he dies, and is free to marry another. In 7:4 Paul says in the same way we have died to the law so that we can belong to another, so he's talking about being free from that aspect of the law that would penalize us so that we can belong to Christ.

            We are being made free from sin and in 7:7, Paul makes the point that the law is not sin, but rather the law instructs us of what sin is. He says the same thing in Romans 3:20 that the law gives us knowledge of sin. So if we are free from the instruction of the law, then we would be free to sin and transgress the law all that we wanted, but Paul emphatically insisted in Romans 6:15 that not being under the law and being under grace didn't give us the freedom to transgress the law. Rather, in 6:16, he says we are to become slaves of obedience.

            This is further confirmed by Paul building up to Romans 8:1-2 that the is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah. And in 8:7 that it is the mind of flesh that is hostile to God and does not submit to God's law. Paul says in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds the law, and in Romans 7:12 that the law is holy, righteous and good. So he is trying to make it clear that he's talking about different aspects of the law. What our faith upholds and what the mind of the flesh rejects is the holy, righteous, and good instructions of the law and what we die to is the law's power to condemn us for breaking it. We have no need to be redeemed from a set of holy, righteous, and good instructions that Jesus summed up as being about how to love God and how to love your neighbor, but we do have need to be redeemed from our sin penalty and to be set free from being mastered by our sin nature.

            The chronology is important. When does this rabbinic term date from?
            There are plenty of sources that talk about rabbis during that time:

            http://followtherabbi.com/uploads/as...ndTalmidim.pdf

            The Mishna became codified a bit after Jesus, but it codified things that were already in existence during his time and includes references to fulfilling that law as interpreting or explaining it.

            "If this is how you act, you have never in your whole life fulfilled the requirement of dwelling in a sukkah! (One rabbi is criticizing another's interpretation of the Torah, which caused him not to do what it really intends.)

            Whoever fulfills the Torah when poor will in the end fulfill it in wealth. And whoever treats the Torah as nothing when he is wealthy in the end will treat it as nothing in poverty. (Here it means "to obey" - definitely the opposite of "fulfill in order to do away with.")"

            Considering that Jesus spent the rest of chapter 5 interpreting and explaining the law, I see no good reason to think that he meant anything other than that.

            Why should we adopt it over the obvious meaning of the Greek?
            G4137 Πληρόω Plēroō
            Thayer definition:
            1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. To fill to the full
            1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
            1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
            2) to render full, i.e. To complete
            2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
            2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect

            It stands that Christ did not come to abolish, but to fill up the Law and the Prophets with meaning and to make perfect the understanding of the them.

            You're the one who mixed up the chronology: when we were justified we were not, up to that point, practicing righteousness.
            I never said we were. When an employee is hired and given an occupational title, they are declared to be someone who now performs that job. Practicing righteousness is the job given to those who are declared righteousness. We can't do this job on our own, but only by faith and through the leading of the Spirit.

            Except that we have died to the Law.
            God is holy, righteous, and good and He gave a holy, righteous, and good law to Moses to instruct them how to be holy, righteous, and good. We are made to be holy, righteous, and good by becoming slaves of obedience, leading to righteousness and slaves of righteousness leading to sanctification. It shouldn't be hard for you to connect the dots. Paul was not saying our freedom in Christ is a freedom to disregard God's holy, righteous, and good standard, but rather it is a freedom to become obedient to it. The law was not exhaustive in that it neither commanded everything that was righteous nor commanded against everything that was unrighteous, so you're welcome to point out that there are other sources of instruction, but they are all complementary.

            I repeat myself: I've already addressed this; Ephesians emphasises circumcision as synecdoche for the law that divides: circumcision as part of Mosaic Law, and your reading of 'man-made laws' is mere eisegesis
            We are to be a holy nation, which means that we are to be set apart by and do the things that God instructed for holy people to do. There will always be a division between those who are children of God by faith and those who are not, but Gentiles are now invited to join Jews in being part of that division without having to become Jews. The law divides between righteousness and the unrighteousness, not between Jews and Gentiles.

            Nonsense. The food laws no longer apply (as repeated in many texts) and the sacrificial laws (Hebrews) all don't apply to Christians after Christ had completed his work.
            A closer investigation of the context shows that dietary laws were never done away with. Furthermore, neither Paul nor the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God or violate Deuteronomy 13 by teaching against keeping God's laws, and Paul denied the accusation that he did. Paul continued to keep the Sabbath, Feasts, kosher, and to do sacrifices throughout Acts. When Paul took a Nazarite vow in Acts 18 and paid for the expenses over others who had taken the vow in Acts 21, which involved paying for animal sacrifices (Numbers 6). If you believe that there is a Millenium, then it is a time when the laws in regard to keeping the Sabbaths, Feasts, kosher, and sacrifices will be kept, both of these after Christ's ascension.

            As Paul has pointed out in Galatians and Romans, we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, and not just the man-made regulations.
            In Galatians, Paul was not arguing against the law, but against those who were saying that Gentiles had to keep it in order to become justified. And Romans says that we uphold the law by our faith and that we are not free to transgress the law.
            Last edited by Soyeong; 04-15-2015, 02:41 PM.
            "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
              Regardless of your interpretation of Romans 7 and Galatians 3, in trying to understand what Jesus meant by "fulfill", we shouldn't interpret it to mean the same thing as abolish.
              And as I've repeatedly made clear, I don't.

              Romans 7 is talking about being set free from the aspect of the law that condemns us.
              Note how being "released from the Law" per Paul becomes release from "that aspect of the law that would penalize us or condemn us to death for breaking it". It's just eisegesis in a desperate attempt to save the position.

              "you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another...But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."

              No, Paul makes the point in 7:2-3 that it is the woman who is bound by the law as long as her husband lives and that she would be be called an adulteress if she were to live with other man while he was still alive, she is the one who is freed from that law after he dies, and is free to marry another. In 7:4 Paul says in the same way we have died to the law so that we can belong to another, so he's talking about being free from that aspect of the law that would penalize us so that we can belong to Christ.
              It is the husband who is free from the Law by dying. Paul's point is that (but I repeat myself) "the Law is binding on a person only as long as he lives". The wife is freed only because the husband died and they were previously bound together by Law. That's it.

              The Mishna became codified a bit after Jesus, but it codified things that were already in existence during his time and includes references to fulfilling that law as interpreting or explaining it.

              "If this is how you act, you have never in your whole life fulfilled the requirement of dwelling in a sukkah! (One rabbi is criticizing another's interpretation of the Torah, which caused him not to do what it really intends.)

              Whoever fulfills the Torah when poor will in the end fulfill it in wealth. And whoever treats the Torah as nothing when he is wealthy in the end will treat it as nothing in poverty. (Here it means "to obey" - definitely the opposite of "fulfill in order to do away with.")"

              Your two examples here don't even support your case: for them 'fulfill' means obey.

              G4137 Πληρόω Plēroō
              Thayer definition:
              1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. To fill to the full
              1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
              1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
              2) to render full, i.e. To complete
              2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
              2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect

              It stands that Christ did not come to abolish, but to fill up the Law and the Prophets with meaning and to make perfect the understanding of the them.
              Hardly. You're just choosing the definition that fits your case without proper argumentation for it.

              I never said we were. When an employee is hired and given an occupational title, they are declared to be someone who now performs that job. Practicing righteousness is the job given to those who are declared righteousness. We can't do this job on our own, but only by faith and through the leading of the Spirit.
              we are declared by faith by God to be righteous, that means we are declared to be someone who practices righteousness.

              God is holy, righteous and good and He gave a holy, righteous, and good law ...
              Stop avoiding the point: we died to the Mosaic Law, as Paul clearly states. That doesn't mean that we don't have another Law to follow, which he also clearly teaches.

              A closer investigation of the context shows that dietary laws were never done away with.
              Hardly.

              Furthermore, neither Paul nor the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God or violate Deuteronomy 13 by teaching against keeping God's laws
              "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

              and Paul denied the accusation that he did.
              Where?

              Paul continued to keep the Sabbath, Feasts, kosher, and to do sacrifices throughout Acts. When Paul took a Nazarite vow in Acts 18 and paid for the expenses over others who had taken the vow in Acts 21, which involved paying for animal sacrifices (Numbers 6).
              As Paul himself remarked, "to those under the law [he] became as one under the law (though not being [himself] under the law)"

              In Galatians, Paul was not arguing against the law, but against those who were saying that Gentiles had to keep it in order to become justified.

              "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian"

              And Romans says that we uphold the law by our faith
              Because we still serve under law, "in the new way of the Spirit" but not under the Mosaic Law.

              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              The best way to cut through the 'Paul was talking about oral law, not the Mosaic Law' nonsense is to go to Galatians 3 where Paul speaks of the Law given to Moses 430 years after the promises to Abraham, the Law that was a guardian, but which those in Christ are no longer under.

              Then one goes to Romans 7 to show why Christians are not under the Law: not because the Law is abolished or destroyed (so the Matthew 5 objection fails) but because we have died to the Law, and here to support this point Paul clearly refers to the marriage law from Mosaic Law, not oral law.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                There is, but you don't care because you're just here to defend Leonhard from the evil bad Paprika.
                Oh? I was not aware of that. Thanks for letting me know.
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #38
                  And as I've repeatedly made clear, I don't.
                  Well, we're still discussing it's meaning and you're still acting like that what he meant.

                  "you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another...But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."
                  Indeed, we need to follow the law by the Spirit not by the letter. Following the law legalistically leads to death, but following it by the Spirit brings life.

                  It is the husband who is free from the Law by dying. Paul's point is that (but I repeat myself) "the Law is binding on a person only as long as he lives". The wife is freed only because the husband died and they were previously bound together by Law. That's it.
                  I explained how that was wrong:

                  "No, Paul makes the point in 7:2-3 that it is the woman who is bound by the law as long as her husband lives and that she would be be called an adulteress if she were to live with another man while he was still alive, she is the one who is freed from that law after he dies, and is free to marry another. In 7:4 Paul says in the same way we have died to the law so that we can belong to another, so he's talking about being free from that aspect of the law that would penalize us so that we can belong to Christ."

                  Your two examples here don't even support your case: for them 'fulfill' means obey.
                  When you correctly obey the law, you demonstrate the correct understanding of it.

                  we are declared by faith by God to be righteous, that means we are declared to be someone who practices righteousness.
                  I explained to you how you misunderstood my statement, so not much sense in you repeating your misunderstanding of it.

                  Stop avoiding the point: we died to the Mosaic Law, as Paul clearly states. That doesn't mean that we don't have another Law to follow, which he also clearly teaches.
                  Paul is making a distinction between the instruction of the law and it's penalty. There is no need to to die to a holy, righteous, and good set of instructions that Jesus summarized as being about how to love God and how to love your neighbor. God still wants us to do both those things, so instructions for how to do them are still important to follow.

                  Romans 3:20 or by works of the law no human being[c] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

                  Romans 7:7a What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.

                  Romans 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

                  The law is how we know what sin is, so if not being under the law doesn't mean we are free to sin all we want, then we need to obey what the law says about sin. Paul was concerned that people would misunderstand him as you are doing an conclude that not being under the law mean that they were free to disregard the instruction of the law, so he emphatically said we were not free to do that.

                  Hardly.
                  Good luck trying to find something that's not there.

                  Where?
                  In Acts 21:21, there were rumors that he been teaching Jews to forsake Moses and he took steps to disprove them. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans checked everything he said against OT Scriptures and found him to be in accordance with it. If Paul had been teaching against following the law, then he would have been in violation of Deuteronomy 13 and they would have rightfully rejected him. In Acts 24:14, he said that he believed everything laid down in the Law and the Prophets. In Acts 25:8 Paul said that he had not committed any offence against the law of the Jews. If he had been teaching against follow the law of the Jews, then it would have been very easy for them to have proved it.

                  As Paul himself remarked, "to those under the law [he] became as one under the law (though not being [himself] under the law)"
                  It's absurd how much deceitfulness and duplicity that you would have to hoist onto the poor guy in a desperate attempt to save your bad theology.

                  Paul was already a Jew and said he was not outside of the law, so he couldn't become what he already was. In verse 21 he even said that he was not outside the law of God. Do you really think Paul was saying that he would act like a sinner to reach sinners and thereby corrupt the message he was preaching to them?? No, the point that Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 8-10 was that he was becoming a servant to all, giving up his privileges, and presenting himself as a brother rather than someone from the outside, all for the sake of the Gospel.

                  "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian"
                  "If your father were king and you were a young child destined to rule one day, he would get a tutor to train you and teach you what you would need to know to rule the kingdom when your time came. He would give the tutor authority to teach, discipline, and punish you.

                  When your time came, would you immediately shoot your tutor, reject everything he had ever taught you, and then have the audacity to proclaim your actions to be in accordance with the wishes, desires, and intentions of your father the king? The tutor is not the king. He is given by the king to train those who will one day rule. They must be trained so that they can properly make decisions and act in the liberty, freedom, responsibility, and position they will one day have.

                  The tutor is there so that you might take his lessons to heart, so that they might become a natural part of your thought processes. You are to rule according to what you have learned, even though the tutor no longer has authority to control or punish you. You will not need to be controlled from then outside, because you will have accepted what you have been taught. You will be controlled from within your heart. It will be your second nature."

                  Because we still serve under law, "in the new way of the Spirit" but not under the Mosaic Law.
                  You have no trouble thinking that Paul is speaking about the Mosaic Law a few verses earlier when he says we are justified by faith apart from the law, so the only reason I see to think that he talking about some other law is that it contradicts your preconceived theology. You need to let the text inform your theology, not the other way around. Paul foresaw that people would misunderstand him in verses 21-30 as meaning that the law could be disregarded, so he added verse 31 to make sure people didn't come away with that understanding. The law still has a role, it's just that it's not, and never was, for the purpose of us becoming justified by keeping it. We can't keep the law through our own efforts, so it is only by faith and the leading of the Spirit that we are able to live up to God's holy, righteous, and good standard. So it is in this way that our faith upholds the Mosaic Law.
                  "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Jehovah Tsidkenu. My holiness is only in Him.
                    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Jehovah Tsidkenu. My holiness is only in Him.
                      Indeed, as it was with the Israelites, but that made it no less important for them to follow God's instructions for how those he made holy should behave.
                      "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                        Well, we're still discussing it's meaning and you're still acting like that what he meant.
                        As long as you can't get past the absurd binary that either the Mosaic is abolished or we cannot have died unto it and still are under it there's not much point in further discussion. I'll reply to the rest of the points in a different post but after this there's not more point in rational dialogue, which leaves only condemnation.

                        shoot your tutor, reject everything he had ever taught you

                        See above; you are enamored with that ridiculous dichotomy.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                          No, Paul makes the point in 7:2-3 that it is the woman who is bound by the law as long as her husband lives and that she would be be called an adulteress if she were to live with another man while he was still alive, she is the one who is freed from that law after he dies, and is free to marry another. In 7:4 Paul says in the same way we have died to the law so that we can belong to another, so he's talking about being free from that aspect of the law that would penalize us so that we can belong to Christ."
                          As I've already pointed out, she's free because the husband died. And since we are the ones who have died, who in the analogy represents us?

                          I explained to you how you misunderstood my statement, so not much sense in you repeating your misunderstanding of it.
                          Your wording was terrible.

                          There is no need to to die to a holy, righteous, and good set of instructions
                          Because the very "commandment that promised life proved to be death to me", as it was weakened by the flesh.

                          Paul was concerned that people would misunderstand him as you are doing an conclude that not being under the law mean that they were free to disregard the instruction of the law
                          A fine way to twist matters: when we're not 'under the [Mosaic] Law' we're not under it.

                          Good luck trying to find something that's not there.
                          Good luck with ignoring all the texts on the food laws, as well as the book of Scriptures.

                          In Acts 21:21, there were rumors that he been teaching Jews to forsake Moses and he took steps to disprove them.

                          Paul took steps to avoid that appearance; it is hardly "Paul denied the accusation".

                          In Acts 17:11, the Bereans checked everything he said against OT Scriptures and found him to be in accordance with it. If Paul had been teaching against following the law, then he would have been in violation of Deuteronomy 13 and they would have rightfully rejected him.
                          Deuteronomy 13 is about worshipping other gods, dimwit. Do you really have no shame twisting Scripture in such a manner?

                          In Acts 24:14, he said that he believed everything laid down in the Law and the Prophets.
                          Your point being?

                          In Acts 25:8 Paul said that he had not committed any offence against the law of the Jews. If he had been teaching against follow the law of the Jews, then it would have been very easy for them to have proved it.
                          Do tell, given that Deuteronomy speaks of a prophet like Moses who would have to be listened to, Jesus himself who inaugurated the new covenant as prophesied by Jeremiah.

                          It's absurd how much deceitfulness and duplicity that you would have to hoist onto the poor guy in a desperate attempt to save your bad theology.

                          Paul was already a Jew and said he was not outside of the law, so he couldn't become what he already was. In verse 21 he even said that he was not outside the law of God.
                          No, dumbass, he makes a distinction between the new law of Christ and the Mosaic Law just as he did in Romans.

                          Do you really think Paul was saying that he would act like a sinner to reach sinners and thereby corrupt the message he was preaching to them?? No, the point that Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 8-10 was that he was becoming a servant to all, giving up his privileges, and presenting himself as a brother rather than someone from the outside, all for the sake of the Gospel.
                          He is not just saying that. He details his different behaviour amongst different groups: amongst the Jews he acts like one still under the Law, under the Gentiles he does not so that by all means he might save some.

                          You have no trouble thinking that Paul is speaking about the Mosaic Law a few verses earlier when he says we are justified by faith apart from the law, so the only reason I see to think that he talking about some other law is that it contradicts your preconceived theology. You need to let the text inform your theology, not the other way around.
                          Idiot. Paul already makes a distinction between 'the law of works' and the 'law of faith'. Because he talks about other laws one must take that into account and not ignore it:
                          For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members...

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by Thoughtful Monk, 10-16-2021, 04:01 PM
                          21 responses
                          121 views
                          2 likes
                          Last Post Sparko
                          by Sparko
                           
                          Started by nico, 10-08-2021, 11:16 AM
                          26 responses
                          159 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post KingsGambit  
                          Started by Bill the Cat, 09-29-2021, 08:31 AM
                          76 responses
                          511 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post NorrinRadd  
                          Started by Thoughtful Monk, 09-20-2021, 08:19 AM
                          28 responses
                          138 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Cow Poke  
                          Started by NorrinRadd, 09-07-2021, 04:03 AM
                          33 responses
                          195 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post nico
                          by nico
                           
                          Working...
                          X