If you believe you can lose your salvation, you are not saved!(explanation)

[Jethro Bodine]

Abraham was justified WHEN HE OBEYED...

And so Paul was lying when he said Abraham was justified when he believed much earlier in Genesis 15:6 NASB?

If we go with your doctrine we have to admit to the atheists and unbelievers that they are right and that there is a gross contradiction in the Bible and, therefore, it can't be the word of God.

 

[stovebolts]

I did. But, yes, I only shared what one part of it is.
Salvation is anything you get saved from. We don't get saved from everything until we enter into the kingdom. Salvation is an ongoing fulfilling of deliverance from the curse and an entering into the inheritance that will be completed at the end of times (1 Peter 1:4-5 NASB). Justification, on the other hand, is a one-time granting of legal righteousness that occurs when you believe in your heart (Romans 10:10 NASB). Only justified people will enter into the inheritance of the saints.


That's Paul's point.
If you and I have been liberated from the task master of sin why do we still obey it's demands? How is it that we are still acting like sin is still our task master?

"How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" (Romans 6:2 NASB)

He gives the answer in the very next verse, but let's 'save' that for another thread. (pun intended)

So really, what you saying is salvation doesn't "really" happen until the second coming of Christ.
In the meantime, we just do our best to be the best people we can be.

Let me see if I understand how your viewing justification.
Your justified the moment you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord. That transaction secures our eternal salvation.

What if you stop believing? does that null and void the contract? I mean, what if something terrible happens in your life and you loose your faith? What if you become bitter and full of hate toward God because some church taught you wrong and you had a skewed view on the nature of God?
Does that simply mean that they didn't have the right "belief"? Or that they never believed in the first place? Either way, were they ever truly justified?
Or, does one have to constantly do what's right to secure the contract of being justified, thus the continual upholding of being justified?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Abraham OBEYED God and it was accredited to him as righteousness.

Did his obedience SHOW him to be righteous

Believe = Obey

Correct, but not the way you are interpreting that.

You are defining 'believe' and 'obey' as if they are exactly the same word and, therefore, interchangeable. And you have to do that in order to make your doctrine valid. But they are hardly one and the same thing by definition.

Obedience is the manifestation of faith--the footprints of faith, not faith itself. For faith is defined for us in the Bible as confidence and surety (Hebrews 11:1 NASB), not what we do. Obedience, on the other hand, is what we do motivated by faith.

What you say is like saying the tire tracks in the driveway and the gasoline in the fuel tank are by definition exactly the same thing.
Not even remotely true, of course. You're building a house of doctrine on the foundation of a flawed premise, that 'faith' and 'obedience' have the exact same definition and are, therefore, interchangeable words. And any doctrine built on a flawed premise can't stand.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So really, what you saying is salvation doesn't "really" happen until the second coming of Christ.

(Lol, are you JLB in disguise?)
No, NOT really. I explained that we don't get it ALL until the end.

In the meantime, we just do our best to be the best people we can be.

In the meantime, we continue in our faith, that faith manifesting itself in--because of the nature of what faith does--an ever increasing life of righteous behavior. IOW, continuing faith means you will continue to grow in righteous behavior. A cessation of growth in righteous behavior means you lost your faith--the faith that makes you righteous--somewhere along the line. The righteous behavior doesn't make you righteous. The faith that motivates it does.

Let me see if I understand how your viewing justification.
Your justified the moment you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord. That transaction secures our eternal salvation.

Correct. And that's assuming that the believing is of a quality that will be able to produce righteous works. If it has that inherant ability to produce righteous behavior, then, yes, it is the faith that justifies. When it does produce that righteous behavior, that is when we will KNOW it was a faith that secured a declaration of righteousness for us.

What if you stop believing? does that null and void the contract?

Yes. The promise is conditioned on faith.
Just like if the promise was conditioned on work you would have to continue to work to gain the inheritance.

I mean, what if something terrible happens in your life and you loose your faith? What if you become bitter and full of hate toward God because some church taught you wrong and you had a skewed view on the nature of God?

The Bible tells us what will happen to the person who loses their faith:

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:26-29 NASB)

I'm not the Judge. The real Judge knows how to dole out this horrible, but just, judgement on former believers in truth and knowledge. I refuse to pass judgment on the theoretical person you presented in your argument. I just know what will happen to him if God judges him/her responsible for their failure of faith.

OSAS for me is not a matter of what will happen if you abandon your faith. The Bible is crystal clear about that. OSAS for me is about whether or not a person can really lose their faith. Are the warnings not to lose your faith only theoretical because it's impossible for a believer to lose their faith? The more I read the scriptures the more I'm seeing it's not just a theoretical warning. Besides, we get people in this very forum from time to time who say they have lost their faith....and want it back, but can't get it back. I leave them to the mercy of God and his just Judgments. He knows if they have sinned to point of no repentance. I sure don't.

Does that simply mean that they didn't have the right "belief"? Or that they never believed in the first place?

It means they have NO belief in Christ, where they once had it. That's what Hebrews 10:26-31 is about--people who once believed--people who walked in their faith. The author even details the works of their faith in the very same passage: "But remember the former days" (Hebrews 10:32 NASB). And that they should persevere in those works of faith to the very end.

Either way, were they ever truly justified?

How can a person who has been sanctified by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:29 NASB) not also be justified?

Or, does one have to constantly do what's right to secure the contract of being justified, thus the continual upholding of being justified?

If I understand JLB's and dadof10's arguments, that is what they say.

I only say one must do right to secure the promised inheritance on the Day of Wrath in that the 'doing right' is the manifestation of a continuing faith in the forgiveness of Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It's not, but faith in God is, if you define "works of the law" as everything written in the OT . Isn't obedient faith in the One True God what justified Abraham?...Twice?


Your turn. Where is this taught anywhere in Scripture? I see faith being contrasted with works of the law, as the verse you posted says, but I don't see faith being contrasted with "everything else".


I didn't have a lot of time when I last responded, so I'll try to be more clear now. This is your main point here:
"He's [James] including the law of Moses in what he says justifies a man." If you can prove this contention, then Paul and James will be truly contradicting unless the word "justified" in James is "shown to be righteous". I agree that if this contention were proved, the word "Justified" would have to be changed to avoid contradiction, however it's not proved. The verses you posted from James do not fit into the category of "works of the law", just because they are mentioned in Lev. and Deut. If they did fit, faith in God would be a "work of the law" also, because it is taught in the Commandments. "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have false gods before me", faith in the One True God and only in Him, would certainly not be considered a "work" but "visit orphans and widows in their distress" is? Your exegesis proves too much. The "works" Paul is contrasting with faith are properly the Jewish ceremonial law, specifically circumcision. The actions they perform that make a Jew a Jew. The acts that separate the Jews from the Gentiles. This was the first heresy within the Church (Acts 15) and Paul's letters were written in reaction to the teaching of these "Judaizers". James, on the other hand, is not even considering "works of the law", but only good deeds.

"If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?" (2:15-16 RSV)

Let me ask you a question, Jethro. We have been going over this topic for a while and I'll readily admit that if "works" in James and Paul mean the same thing, the only way to logically reconcile the two (that I know of) would be to interpret "justified" as "shown to be righteous". Will you admit that if the word "works" in Paul means "works of the law" and in James "good deeds", this would settle the "contradiction problem"?


Our views of righteousness are different and to keep from talking by each other, we should discuss whether justification is an ongoing process or a one time event. If it is a process, then it could be rightfully said that ongoing faith and ongoing growth in holiness are both necessary for ongoing justification and ongoing forgiveness of sins. If it is a one time event, then only one thing is needed, whether that be faith or works or whatever. This is why I keep bringing up Abraham and how he was justified (at least) twice. The question probably got lost in the three different threads on this same subject, so I'll ask again. Abraham had "obedient faith" in Gen. 12. Isn't obedient faith the only thing that justifies?

I'm not ignoring this.
I'll be back. :shades

 

[dadof10]

I only say one must do right to secure the promised inheritance on the Day of Wrath in that the 'doing right' is the manifestation of a continuing faith in the forgiveness of Christ.

I know from past conversations you believe that if we come across someone who is "ill-clad and in lack of daily food", it's not optional to help. You must help to show your true faith. I (and StoveBolts and JLB) believe that we must help or it will affect our justification because it's a process. Both of our views look exactly the same. We are both helping out of love for God and neighbor and it's not optional in either case. Where we differ, is IF WE CHOOSE to "walk on biiiyyyyy. Foolish priiiide, is all that I have left..." Oh, sorry. I'm back. You believe that this disobedience will not affect our standing as "justified", where I believe it will. We both hold that we can lose true justification, but you hold that it can never be regained, and I hold God's true teaching, that it can . Just pointing out that we really aren't as far apart as it sometimes comes across in these debates. Carry on...

 

[dadof10]

I'm not ignoring this.
I'll be back. :shades

I know. You're a stand-up guy. Wrong, but stand-up nonetheless

 

[JLB]

Did his obedience SHOW him to be righteous

Correct, but not the way you are interpreting that.

You are defining 'believe' and 'obey' as if they are exactly the same word and, therefore, interchangeable. And you have to do that in order to make your doctrine valid. But they are hardly one and the same thing by definition.

Obedience is the manifestation of faith--the footprints of faith, not faith itself. For faith is defined for us in the Bible as confidence and surety (Hebrews 11:1 NASB), not what we do. Obedience, on the other hand, is what we do motivated by faith.

What you say is like saying the tire tracks in the driveway and the gasoline in the fuel tank are by definition exactly the same thing.
Not even remotely true, of course. You're building a house of doctrine on the foundation of a flawed premise, that 'faith' and 'obedience' have the exact same definition and are, therefore, interchangeable words. And any doctrine built on a flawed premise can't stand.

Faith without obedience is not faith.

Just as a person without the spirit is not a person but just a body.

A body together with the spirit is a person, a human, a living being.

Faith is what we receive from God, when He speaks to us.

Unless we actively obey, that is to say, put into action, what He inspires us to do, then the faith within us is dead.

Here are the words of scripture in black and white for all to read.

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:17

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26

You're building a house of doctrine on the foundation of a flawed premise, that 'faith' and 'obedience' have the exact same definition and are, therefore, interchangeable words.

I didn't say obedience and faith are the same word and are interchangeable.

Obedience is what makes faith, faith.

Without obedience faith is dead.

Faith comes from God, when He speaks.

Faith is an intangible reality that we receive from God, and becomes a tangible reality when we obey the word that produced faith within us.

Faith is the substance of the thing hoped for... our cooperating, corresponding obedience with this substance of the thing we are hoping for produces the reality of that substance, and results in our obtaining the reality of that substance.


Example:

20 And suddenly, a woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years came from behind and touched the hem of His garment. 21 For she said to herself, “If only I may touch His garment, I shall be made well.” 22 But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her He said, “Be of good cheer, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And the woman was made well from that hour. Matthew 9:20-22

It wasn't her her believing "all by itself" within her, but the corresponding action her touching the hem of His garment, that brought about the divine result of her obtaining the thing she hoped for.

Your theology would have us believe that the woman who was sick, would have gotten healed by simply believing within herself, with no corresponding action.


I going to ask you a simple straightforward, yes or no question, to see if you will honestly answer it.


If the woman did not touch the hem of His garment, would she have been healed?

Yes or No?


JLB

 

[dadof10]

I also suggest you read Ephesians 2:11 and following. That text immediately follows the famous "you are not saved by works" statement:

8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. [Ephesians 2:8-9, NASB]

Here is that text:

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands- 12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. [Ephesians 2:11-22]

Note the "therefore" that implies that Paul is working out the implications of, among other things, what it means to be not be "saved by works". It really could not be more clear. Paul is upset with the notion that only Jews can be in God's family. The issue is not "good works", it is the "works", or dictates of the Law of Moses, given to Jews only, and seen by them as a kind of national charter.

I've decided I'm going to re-read all of Paul's letters in the light of reaction to "only the Jews can be saved, so the Gentiles have to obey the law". I have long held that Paul was only contrasting "works of the law" with faith, but this is a new wrinkle for me. So far, your theory is holding up. The first few chapters of Romans become more clear reading with this view in mind. Paul is obviously trying to heal divisions (Jew vs. Gentile) within the Church in much of his writing, like the section from Eph. above.

 

[JLB]

I've decided I'm going to re-read all of Paul's letters in the light of reaction to "only the Jews can be saved, so the Gentiles have to obey the law". I have long held that Paul was only contrasting "works of the law" with faith, but this is a new wrinkle for me. So far, your theory is holding up. The first few chapters of Romans become more clear reading with this view in mind. Paul is obviously trying to heal divisions (Jew vs. Gentile) within the Church in much of his writing, like the section from Eph. above.

Yes, as the enmity itself between Jew and Gentiles was the law of commandments contain in ordinances.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
Ephesians 2:14-16


JLB

 

[dadof10]

Yes, as the enmity itself between Jew and Gentiles was the law of commandments contain in ordinances.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
Ephesians 2:14-16


JLB

Yeah, I knew it existed, I just had never looked at it as a salvation issue before. I don't know why I never connected the dots between verses like Eph. and Acts 15 "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."". Go figure...It must have been a considerably large group to cause so much contention and a council. I just never even though of someone saying that a person must be a JEW to be saved, not just be circumcised. It's a good point.

 

[Drew]

I've decided I'm going to re-read all of Paul's letters in the light of reaction to "only the Jews can be saved, so the Gentiles have to obey the law". I have long held that Paul was only contrasting "works of the law" with faith, but this is a new wrinkle for me. So far, your theory is holding up. The first few chapters of Romans become more clear reading with this view in mind. Paul is obviously trying to heal divisions (Jew vs. Gentile) within the Church in much of his writing, like the section from Eph. above.

It's a little complicated. I am convinced that Paul is indeed contrasting "works of the Law of Moses" with faith, but when he refers to "works of the law" he sees them not as a set of moral prescriptions, but rather as a "badge" of national identity: Paul, so the argument goes, sees his fellow Jews as thinking that they believe God's promises are limited to Jews, that is, those who do the works of the Law of Moses. Do you see the distinction? Paul is not objecting to the notion that "good works save, even the ones prescribed by the Law of Moses" - we know from Romans 2:6-7 that he believes that good works are needed for salvation:

6God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [Romans 2:6-7, NIV]

And it is both comical and sad to see how so many here simply refuse to come to terms with this text.

So what about the "faith" side of "works of the law vs faith" contrast that Paul draws? If you have been reading my posts, and I certainly do not expect that you have, you will know I do indeed affirm that "faith saves", but in the qualified sense that it produces good works that will be the basis for final salvation. Stand by for another post, please.

 

[JLB]

Yeah, I knew it existed, I just had never looked at it as a salvation issue before. I don't know why I never connected the dots between verses like Eph. and Acts 15 "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."". Go figure...It must have been a considerably large group to cause so much contention and a council. I just never even though of someone saying that a person must be a JEW to be saved, not just be circumcised. It's a good point.

It is the issue of Hebrews... As Turning away from God meant turning back to the law.

In Romans it is confessing Jesus as Lord, YHWH, the Lord God Almighty of the Old Testament.


JLB

 

[Drew]

I've decided I'm going to re-read all of Paul's letters in the light of reaction to "only the Jews can be saved, so the Gentiles have to obey the law". I have long held that Paul was only contrasting "works of the law" with faith, but this is a new wrinkle for me. So far, your theory is holding up. The first few chapters of Romans become more clear reading with this view in mind. Paul is obviously trying to heal divisions (Jew vs. Gentile) within the Church in much of his writing, like the section from Eph. above.

Romans 3:27-28 in the NASB:

27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

What are these works of the Law that cannot justify? “Good works” in general, or the practices or “works” of the Law of Moses?

Paul is addressing the Law of Moses here, not “good works”. The “boast” (verse 27) is not the boast of the person who thinks he can climb to heaven by a ladder of good works, it is the boast of the Jew who thinks that being part of the ethnic group who do Law of Moses will justify him.

This is borne out by verse 29 which makes no sense if "good works" or "or obedience to a general law" is in view in verse 28, but which makes perfect sense if the works are those of the Law of Moses:

29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

Paul is amplifying the implications of verse 27 and 28, focusing on how the Jew and Gentile are both members of God’s family. In verses 27 and 28, he has written that “works” do not justify. In verse 29, it becomes clear that these are the works of Law of Moses since it is by doing the works of Law of Moses that the Jew could boast "God is God of the Jews only". What marks out the nation Israel from the Gentile? Possession and doing of Law of Moses, of course. Not good works. How do we know that Paul does not think good works marks the Jew from the Gentile. Why he has just told us, a few breaths earlier:

9What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10as it is written,
"There is none righteous, not even one;
11There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12All have turned aside, together they havebecome useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one." [Romans 3:9-12, NASB]

The logic seems inescapable: when Paul writes that one is not justified by "works of the law", he is simply saying "God does not justify only Jews". Of course, if you are dead set on seeing "works of the law" as denoting "good works" and you are willing to ignore the logic of the larger argument in Romans and you are willing to ignore Romans 2:6-7, you can indeed think Paul is denying that good works play a role in salvation / justification. Shockingly, many here seem to be willing to take that line.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I've decided I'm going to re-read all of Paul's letters in the light of reaction to "only the Jews can be saved, so the Gentiles have to obey the law". I have long held that Paul was only contrasting "works of the law" with faith, but this is a new wrinkle for me. So far, your theory is holding up. The first few chapters of Romans become more clear reading with this view in mind. Paul is obviously trying to heal divisions (Jew vs. Gentile) within the Church in much of his writing, like the section from Eph. above.

Okay, but remember while you're reading, that the law of Moses was not only for the Jew:

29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien." (Numbers 15:29 NASB)

The only thing I can think of in the law that was specifically for the native born Jew only was the dwelling in Booths (Leviticus 23:42 NASB). Everything else the gentile could do, and was supposed to do. It was the Jews themselves and their stupid rabbinical add-on laws that prohibited the gentiles from participating in the common wealth of Israel. So don't forget that while you are reading.

 

[Drew]

Okay, but remember while you're reading, that the law of Moses was not only for the Jew:

29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien." (Numbers 15:29 NASB)

The only thing I can think of in the law that was specifically for the native born Jew only was the dwelling in Booths (Leviticus 23:42 NASB). Everything else the gentile could do, and was supposed to do. It was the Jews themselves and their stupid rabbinical add-on laws that prohibited the gentiles from participating in the common wealth of Israel. So don't forget that while you are reading.

Yes, the Law of Moses was to be followed by aliens, but only those otherwise already living in the midst of the Jewish nation. But over and over again, the Old Testament makes it clear that one function, perhaps the most important function of the Law of Moses was to mark out the Jew from the Gentiles:

25You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean.26Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine. [Leviticus 20:25-26, NASB]

I believe I can find many other examples.

And from the New Testament, it is also clear that Paul understands the Law of Moses as only applying to the Jew:

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; [Romans 2:12, NASB]

Paul clearly sees the Law of Moses as applying to only the Jew - the Gentile is not under the Law. And things are more even clear here in Romans 3:

28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [Romans 3:28-29]

The logic of this short text only works if the Law (obviously, the Law of Moses) applies exclusively to the Jew. In other words, it is precisely because only the Jew is under the Law that Paul needs to argue that justification has nothing to do with performing the works of the law, if the Gentile, too, can be justified. If the Gentile were under the law, the argument would make no sense.

I know you are not a big fan of scholars, but I would bet a flagon of ale that the overwhelming majority of scholars would agree that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews and only the Jews, except of course the limited exceptions where non-Jews were otherwise already integrated into Jewish society.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I know from past conversations you believe that if we come across someone who is "ill-clad and in lack of daily food", it's not optional to help. You must help to show your true faith. I (and StoveBolts and JLB) believe that we must help or it will affect our justification because it's a process.

You have it backwards. Your justification (being MADE righteous with Christ's righteousness) is what affects whether you help or not. John says that here:

"The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous." (1 John 3:7 NASB)

But you have it as 'the one who does right is made righteous just as he is righteous'. Big difference.

The only justification that is a process is in regard to you showing the righteousness you have through faith your n Christ. That is what we are growing up into. It is our legal declaration of righteousness already completed for us in full that is being revealed in us in ever-increasing measure. We are not obtaining being made legally righteous in ever-increasing measure. That's done already. Christ did that for us one time for all time (Colossians 1:22 NASB).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, the Law of Moses was to be followed by aliens, but only those otherwise already living in the midst of the Jewish nation. But over and over again, the Old Testament makes it clear that one function, perhaps the most important function of the Law of Moses was to mark out the Jew from the Gentiles:

25You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean.26Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine. [Leviticus 20:25-26, NASB]

I believe I can find many other examples.

And from the New Testament, it is also clear that Paul understands the Law of Moses as only applying to the Jew:

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; [Romans 2:12, NASB]

Paul clearly sees the Law of Moses as applying to only the Jew - the Gentile is not under the Law. And things are more even clear here in Romans 3:

28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [Romans 3:28-29]

The logic of this short text only works if the Law (obviously, the Law of Moses) applies exclusively to the Jew. In other words, it is precisely because only the Jew is under the Law that Paul needs to argue that justification has nothing to do with performing the works of the law, if the Gentile, too, can be justified. If the Gentile were under the law, the argument would make no sense.

I know you are not a big fan of scholars, but I would bet a flagon of ale that the overwhelming majority of scholars would agree that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews and only the Jews, except of course the limited exceptions where non-Jews were otherwise already integrated into Jewish society.

The law was literally given to the people of God--which has ALWAYS been composed of both Jew and gentile (Exodus 12:38 NASB).

It is the bigoted Jews who decided it was all there's and only there's. Big mistake.
They don't even know their own law.

 

[Drew]

The law was literally given to the people of God--which has ALWAYS been composed of both Jew and gentile (Exodus 12:38 NASB).

It is the bigoted Jews who decided it was all there's and only there's. Big mistake.
They don't even know their own law.

Can you please respond to the three texts I provided?

 

[Drew]

The law was literally given to the people of God--which has ALWAYS been composed of both Jew and gentile (Exodus 12:38 NASB).

How, and please be specific, does this statement, or the surrounding context justify the conclusion that the Law was for both Jews and Gentiles?

A mixed multitude also went up with them, along with flocks and herds, a very large number of livestock. [Exodus 12:38, NASB]

Even if the "mix" was Jews and Gentiles, how is this evidence that the Law was given to both Jews and Gentiles. All I see is a statement about a bunch of people going from A to B. Let's say that I agree that there were both Jews and Gentiles in this mix. And let's say that I agree that all these people are subject to the Law. That is perfectly consistent with what I have already asserted - that the Law does indeed apply to those Gentiles who, for whatever circumstance, found themselves integrated with the nation of Israel.

In short, how does this text, or any other for that matter, support the notion that the Law of Moses was for Jews and all Gentiles?