The Law, works and keeping his comandments

[Jethro Bodine]

As I have time I will address your last post point by point.

 

[JLB]

JLB,

"31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31 NIV)



Since you do not agree with Paul, what requirements of the law of Moses do not get upheld by faith in Jesus Christ?

I know you say this is directed to blood Jews, but how does faith in Jesus if your Jewish uphold the requirements of the law of Moses, but faith in Jesus if your a gentile does not uphold the requirements of the law?

Your answer is found in this verse 30.

30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

What is the difference in being justified by faith and being justified through faith.

The circumcised were justified by faith.

Whereas the uncircumcised we're justified through faith.

Can you explain the difference?

JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Your answer is found in this verse 30.

30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

What is the difference in being justified by faith and being justified through faith.

The circumcised were justified by faith.

Whereas the uncircumcised we're justified through faith.

Can you explain the difference?

JLB

Don't know why you're bringing justification into this (which is one of the points I'm going to address in your last post).

Jews and gentiles are justified the exact same way, by trusting that their sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ. So I don't see a difference between 'by' faith, and 'through' faith. And especially not in regard to Jew and gentile.

"8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them (the gentiles, see text) by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:8-9 NIV)


I answered your question. So you answer mine.

Going back to the passage in Romans 2 you brought up, do uncircumcised gentiles uphold (satisfy, fulfill, etc.) the lawful requirement for circumcision by their faith in Christ and their obedience to walk according to the fruit of the Spirit, or do they nullify the lawful requirement for circumcision (leaving it unmet, unsatisfied, unfulfilled) through their faith in Christ?

"...if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?" (Romans 2:26 NIV)

(Notice the distinction Paul makes between literal circumcision and the requirements of the law. The distinction between literal first covenant ways of fulfilling requirements of the law and the requirements of the law themselves you claim one can not make. But a distinction that if you do not make will keep you from understanding )

 

[JLB]

Don't know why you're bringing justification into this (which is one of the points I'm going to address in your last post).

Jews and gentiles are justified the exact same way, by trusting that their sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ. So I don't see a difference between 'by' faith, and 'through' faith. And especially not in regard to Jew and gentile.

I'm not bringing up justification, per se, just discussing the scripture that you keep bringing up.

30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. Romans 3:30-31

The we in verse 31 refers to Jews.

The Gentiles were under the law of God, not the law of Moses, which required a Levitical Priesthood, ceremonial laws, food laws...

The Gentiles were never required to uphold the law of Moses, as this was given to the natural offspring of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, ie; The children of Israel while they were in the Promised Land.

but faith in Jesus if your a gentile does not uphold the requirements of the law?

Romans 3:31 doesn't say requirements of the law, it says we establish the law.

The requirement of Gods law is obedience.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.


the righteous requirement of the law is OBEDIENCE.

DISOBEDIENCE IS WHAT BROUGHT THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH TO BEAR ON MANKIND.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. Romans 3:30-31

The we in verse 31 refers to Jews.

The Gentiles were under the law of God, not the law of Moses, which required a Levitical Priesthood, ceremonial laws, food laws...

The Gentiles were never required to uphold the law of Moses, as this was given to the natural offspring of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, ie; The children of Israel while they were in the Promised Land.

But what you haven't shown is how my faith in Christ does not uphold the law (I'm a gentile), and therefore, this passage does not apply to me. I showed you how my faith--along with every other single person who believes, Jew or gentile--does uphold the law of Moses.

Romans 3:31 doesn't say requirements of the law, it says we establish the law.

The requirement of Gods law is obedience.

'Righteousness of the law', and 'righteous requirements of the law' are the same thing.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.


the righteous requirement of the law is OBEDIENCE.

Can't you see you're making my point?

The law has requirements for righteous obedience in it. Paul says when we have faith in Christ and walk by the fruit of the Spirit we fulfill and uphold those righteous requirements of the law, not destroy them. If that's not true, show me how faith in Christ does NOT uphold the righteous requirements of the law. Then you will have made your point.

And explain so I can understand how faith in the blood of Christ for a Jew upholds the righteousness of the law, but the exact same faith in the the blood of Christ for a gentile does NOT uphold the righteousness of the law.

DISOBEDIENCE IS WHAT BROUGHT THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH TO BEAR ON MANKIND.


JLB

I'm sorry but your post is more confusing than it is helpful for me to understand your POV.

Because the sin nature has been crucified with Christ we are no longer under the condemnation of the law. But how does that mean a person with a crucified sin nature doesn't then obey and uphold the righteous requirements of the law in their new nature?

Which righteous requirements of the law do not get upheld when I have faith in Christ? And why doesn't the exact same faith in Christ for a Jew uphold the requirements of the law, but not for a gentile?

 

[JLB]

But what you haven't shown is how my faith in Christ does not uphold the law (I'm a gentile), and therefore, this passage does not apply to me. I showed you how my faith--along with every other single person who believes, Jew or gentile--does uphold the law of Moses.



'Righteousness of the law', and 'righteous requirements of the law' are the same thing.


Can't you see you're making my point?

The law has requirements for righteous obedience in it. Paul says when we have faith in Christ and walk by the fruit of the Spirit we fulfill and uphold those righteous requirements of the law, not destroy them. If that's not true, show me how faith in Christ does NOT uphold the righteous requirements of the law. Then you will have made your point.

And explain so I can understand how faith in the blood of Christ for a Jew upholds the righteousness of the law, but the exact same faith in the the blood of Christ for a gentile does NOT uphold the righteousness of the law.



I'm sorry but your post is more confusing than it is helpful for me to understand your POV.

Because the sin nature has been crucified with Christ we are no longer under the condemnation of the law. But how does that mean a person with a crucified sin nature doesn't then obey and uphold the righteous requirements of the law in their new nature?

Which righteous requirements of the law do not get upheld when I have faith in Christ? And why doesn't the exact same faith in Christ for a Jew uphold the requirements of the law, but not for a gentile?

The scripture doesn't say requirements, it say righteous requirement. Not many requirements of the law of Moses, but the one requirement of God's law. OBEDIENCE.

The sin that brought death upon all mankind was disobedience to God's Voice, do not eat of the tree...

Disobeying God's law.

 

[JLB]

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Galatians 3:19

Do you see that the children of Israel, transgressed God's Covenant Law before Moses was ever born.

So with your terminology and phrasing, I will explain to you my POV.

God added THE WAY to keep HIS LAW to the Abrahamic Covenant, which was by walking with Him by faith, and made a system of laws with animal sacrifices and special feast days, and food laws, and ceremonial cleansings that pointed to Christ and the WAY Abraham walked in His Presence and obeyed His Voice and kept His laws.

God added this WAY to keep His Laws, till the Seed should come.

After the Seed came and paid the price for all of our sins with the blood of God, and gave us a nature that is compatible with His Spirit, to be able to walk with God and be led by His Spirit, the WAY Abraham did.

The WAY of Moses law, to maintain Covenant Relationship with the Lord was added, till the seed should come.

You say just the opposite. You say The WAY to keep Moses law is by faith in Christ.

Abraham kept Covenant relationship, by the obedience of faith. The system of Moses law was added to Relationship by the obedience of Faith.

The scripture says, The WAY to maintain Covenant Relationship is the obedience of faith.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

You say, the WAY to keep Moses law, is faith in Christ.

You have it 180 degrees backwards!


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So with your terminology and phrasing, I will explain to you my POV.

God added THE WAY to keep HIS LAW to the Abrahamic Covenant, which was by walking with Him by faith, and made a system of laws with animal sacrifices and special feast days, and food laws, and ceremonial cleansings that pointed to Christ and the WAY Abraham walked in His Presence and obeyed His Voice and kept His laws.

God added this WAY to keep His Laws, till the Seed should come.

Now you've really got me cornfused. I've been saying this for 15 pages.

What is it that you do not agree with me about?

After the Seed came and paid the price for all of our sins with the blood of God, and gave us a nature that is compatible with His Spirit, to be able to walk with God and be led by His Spirit, the WAY Abraham did.

The WAY of Moses law, to maintain Covenant Relationship with the Lord was added, till the seed should come.

I'm witchu' so far...

You say just the opposite. You say The WAY to keep Moses law is by faith in Christ.

No, I say what the Bible says: Faith in Christ and walking in the Spirit (love, joy, peace, etc.) upholds and fulfills, not violates, the righteous requirements of the law.

"9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:9-10 NIV)

But you have been resisting this fiercely.

Abraham kept Covenant relationship, by the obedience of faith. The system of Moses law was added to Relationship by the obedience of Faith.

The scripture says, The WAY to maintain Covenant Relationship is the obedience of faith.

Right, that is the NEW WAY I've been talking about--faith in Jesus Christ. But a new way as I've just shown you , again, upholds the righteousness of the old way, not destroys it. Faith in Christ does not uphold the old WAY. It upholds the righteous requirements served by that old way.

You say, the WAY to keep Moses law, is faith in Christ.

You have it 180 degrees backwards!


JLB

Uh, no. I say what the Bible says. When we have faith in Christ the righteousness required by the law gets met, not nullified.

 

[JLB]

No, I say what the Bible says: Faith in Christ and walking in the Spirit (love, joy, peace, etc.) upholds and fulfills, not violates, the righteous requirements of the law.

"9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:9-10 NIV)
But you have been resisting this fiercely.

A.] It does not say righteous requirements. The scripture says righteous requirement. One requirement! OBEDIENCE.

B.] Love God and Love your neighbor is Gods law.

37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

The Torah includes Genesis. Genesis is what the law of Moses was "added" to and was around long before Moses law.


You have taught the by faith that is the WAY Moses law is upheld.

The WAY of Moses law with animal sacrifices.... was added to the WAY of righteous by faith, until the Seed should come.

This is the opposite of what you are saying.

Abraham walked by faith with the Lord.

We walk by faith with the Lord.

The law is Not of faith!!!!!!


Sorry you can't see this.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

A.] It does not say righteous requirements. The scripture says righteous requirement. One requirement! OBEDIENCE.

What are you talking about? Are you referring to a scripture passage?

The righteous requirements of the law are obviously composed of more than one command. And even in 'the law has ended' mentality in the church today (for all that means to the church) 'obedience' means a minimum of at least three laws:

1) Love God
2) Love your neighbor
3) Believe in Christ

If the Bible summarizes obedience to God this way, how do you decide it's only one command?

And so you don't lose focus, the point of all this is the three commands listed above uphold the law of Moses, not nullifies it. But if you disagree with that list the laws that don't get upheld and fulfilled by those three commands. Do that and the discussion will be over. Paul is wrong, I'm wrong, and you're right.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You have taught the by faith that is the WAY Moses law is upheld.

That's what Paul says.

"31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3: NIV)

You can argue whether or not he's talking to just Jews, but the point is faith in Christ upholds the law, not nullifies it. Faith is the NEW WAY to serve God, and that new way just happens to fulfill the law of Moses, not destroys it.

The WAY of Moses law with animal sacrifices.... was added to the WAY of righteous by faith, until the Seed should come.

God as my witness, I've been saying this from the beginning.

Hebrews calls that WAY of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice found in the law the 'first covenant'. That is what got laid aside, not that which that way sought to fulfill.

This is the opposite of what you are saying.

Nope. God as my witness. I've been saying this all along.

Abraham walked by faith with the Lord.

We walk by faith with the Lord.

Of course.

The error you're making is thinking that it's wrong to say walking by faith upholds, not violates, the law of Moses. If you still think that, show me how faith does not uphold the law.

The law is Not of faith!!!!!!


Sorry you can't see this.

The WAY of the law is not the WAY of faith in Christ. I see and understand it perfectly. Paul plainly says so.

The problem is, when I say what the Bible says, that faith upholds the law, not nullifies it, you can only hear it as 'faith upholds the WAY of the law of Moses'. Even when I try to explain to you again and again that's not what I or the Bible are saying you still can't seem to get the argument being presented.

 

[JLB]

What are you talking about? Are you referring to a scripture passage?

The righteous requirements of the law are obviously composed of more than one command. And even in 'the law has ended' mentality in the church today (for all that means to the church) 'obedience' means a minimum of at least three laws:

1) Love God
2) Love your neighbor
3) Believe in Christ

If the Bible summarizes obedience to God this way, how do you decide it's only one command?

And so you don't lose focus, the point of all this is the three commands listed above uphold the law of Moses, not nullifies it. But if you disagree with that list the laws that don't get upheld and fulfilled by those three commands. Do that and the discussion will be over. Paul is wrong, I'm wrong, and you're right.

3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:3

The righteous requirement of the law is OBEDIENCE.

Paul clearly says- for I speak to those that know the law...

The righteous requirement of the law is Obedience to do ALL that is written in the law.

as it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.


JLB

 

[JLB]

That's what Paul says.

"31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3: NIV)

You can argue whether or not he's talking to just Jews, but the point is faith in Christ upholds the law, not nullifies it. Faith is the NEW WAY to serve God, and that new way just happens to fulfill the law of Moses, not destroys it.

A.] I have never said destroy the law. I have never said nullify the law.

I only use the phrase that scripture uses, such as vanish away.

If you will do three things, you will find our dialog running much smoother.

A.] Stop saying things that I have not said.

B.] Stop adding phrases or words to scripture, like: The way the law... When scripture does not have those words in there. You add your words to scripture.

C.] If the scripture says righteous requirement, don't say righteous requirements and list all the reqiurements that the scripture doesn't list.

If you will do these three things, then what you have to say will be heeded by me.

Romans 3:27-31

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

This scripture states that the law of faith establishes the law.

This scripture does not mention faith in Christ. The phrase "faith in Christ" is not mentioned.

Faith is the direct result of hearing God. Faith is declared "alive" is you employ the effort that obedience requires [the action of obedience].

In other words, you do what you hear God tell you to do.

If you hear God and don't obey what you hear Him tell you, YOUR FAITH IS DEAD.

This is another way of saying, as many as are led by the spirit of God, these are the sons of God.

Do you understand this!


JLB

 

[reba]

 

[JLB]

Wouldn't it be nice to stop going around and around.

I would like to actually benefit from my discussion with this gentleman.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

A.] I have never said destroy the law. I have never said nullify the law.

I only use the phrase that scripture uses, such as vanish away.

I haven't forgotten. I know you're one of the few in the church that doesn't say the law was abolished.

Paul uses the word 'nullified' in the Romans 3:31 verse we've been discussing. That's why I use that word when discussing the verse.

B.] Stop adding phrases or words to scripture, like: The way the law... When scripture does not have those words in there. You add your words to scripture.

You yourself started using the phrase 'way of the law of Moses'. Sinthesis did too. But that does not surprise me, because that's the compelling thought that comes up in the mind when talking about the difference between the old and New Covenants and the 'way' we serve God.

C.] If the scripture says righteous requirement, don't say righteous requirements and list all the reqiurements that the scripture doesn't list.

Didn't you read what I wrote about this?

Even if you ball all the requirements of faith into a single command to 'be obedient', it's obvious that statement means obeying many, many commands.

We could talk about all the many individual requirements of God, and depending on the context we're discussing them in, isolate each requirement. In the context of Romans 8 we see the 'requirement' of the law is sacrifice for sin. Jesus being that required sacrifice. Just another example of how faith in Jesus upholds and fulfills the law of Moses, not breaks it. But faith in Jesus does make the old way of fulfilling that requirement for sacrifice 'vanish away'.

If you will do these three things, then what you have to say will be heeded by me.

Romans 3:27-31

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

This scripture states that the law of faith establishes the law.

This scripture does not mention faith in Christ. The phrase "faith in Christ" is not mentioned.

So I won't be accused of misrepresenting your doctrine, explain what 'the law of faith' means again. Then I will answer your doctrine.

Faith is the direct result of hearing God. Faith is declared "alive" is you employ the effort that obedience requires [the action of obedience].

In other words, you do what you hear God tell you to do.

If you hear God and don't obey what you hear Him tell you, YOUR FAITH IS DEAD.

This is another way of saying, as many as are led by the spirit of God, these are the sons of God.

Do you understand this!


JLB

The terrible mistake you're making is you can't hear that what I'm saying is that when we walk by faith the requirements of the law of Moses, as a result, don't get violated. You can only (mistakenly) hear me say that we take the letter of the law and try really, really hard to obey it (presumably in our own power) then we will be walking by the Spirit. Hardly true.

READ CAREFULLY: I'm saying that when we are peaceable, loving, faithful, not envious, not jealous, kind, forgiving, thoughtful, not selfish, etc... we don't violate any requirements found in the law of Moses. But if you disagree, please tell me how that isn't true. Remember, I said if you can do that this round and round discussion will immediately end, for you will discredit my (and the Bible's) argument completely and I will have nothing else to say.


Also, walking by the Spirit (as the result of having faith) is NOT by definition not reading our Bibles and then obeying. That is ludicrous, but I know that is a popular teaching in the church today.

This is walking by the Spirit of God:

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry,sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger,disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

(Galatians 5:16-25 NASB)

This may well be one of the biggest reasons for the lack of obedience in the church today. If we all understood what 'walking in the Spirit' actually meant we'd know full well that the church is really missing the mark in regard to 'walking in the Spirit', and 'walking by faith'. Big time. But if we keep teaching 'walking in the Spirit' as receiving spiritual information via our minds without aid of our Bibles and teachers, we will continue to be a disobedient church who doesn't know it really isn't 'walking in the Spirit', and 'walking in faith' very well at all.

 

[JLB]

I haven't forgotten. I know you're one of the few in the church that doesn't say the law was abolished.

Paul uses the word 'nullified' in the Romans 3:31 verse we've been discussing. That's why I use that word when discussing the verse.

Faith does not nullify God's Law, as seen in the law of Moses.

Gentiles were not required to keep Moses law.

You yourself started using the phrase 'way of the law of Moses'. Sinthesis did too. But that does not surprise me, because that's the compelling thought that comes up in the mind when talking about the difference between the old and New Covenants and the 'way' we serve God.

I used the Phrase "The WAY of Moses law to serve God and keep His Law, was added to the Abrahamic Covenant.

I did this and explained I was using your terminology.

I also explained this was the opposite of what you stated which was; faith in Christ is the WAY Moses law is upheld.

Gentiles are not required to be physically circumcised. This is the first requirement of keeping Moses Law.

You countered this by pointing to "Circumcision of the heart".

I agree that "physical Circumcision" points to what God intended, but this does not nullify the requirement that the law of Moses demanded during that time.

In another words: A Jew could not use the argument, I don't need to be physically Circumcised because my heart is circumcised .

That person would be simply "cut off" from among the people.

Physical Circumcision was a requirement of the law of Moses for the children of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

God's People who dwelt in other nations were not required to be under Moses Law.

Example: Persian Gentiles, who lived in Persia, were not circumcised.

Gentiles today are not required to be physically circumcised.

Didn't you read what I wrote about this?

Even if you ball all the requirements of faith into a single command to 'be obedient', it's obvious that statement means obeying many, many commands.

We could talk about all the many individual requirements of God, and depending on the context we're discussing them in, isolate each requirement. In the context of Romans 8 we see the 'requirement' of the law is sacrifice for sin. Jesus being that required sacrifice. Just another example of how faith in Jesus upholds and fulfills the law of Moses, not breaks it. But faith in Jesus does make the old way of fulfilling that requirement for sacrifice 'vanish away'.

The Foundational Requirement of God's Law is Obedience, as seen from the beginning in the Garden.

The Old Covenant has vanished away.

The requirement to keep God's Law, that was seen within that Covenant, has not Vanished away.

God's Laws do not vanish away.

The law of Moses was added UNTIL the seed should come.

The terrible mistake you're making is you can't hear that what I'm saying is that when we walk by faith the requirements of the law of Moses, as a result, doesn't get violated. Also, walking by the Spirit (as the result of having faith) is NOT by definition not reading our Bibles and then obeying. That is ludicrous, but I know that is a popular teaching in the church today.

[/quote]

I believe God's Laws that were seen within Moses law are eternal and should be kept Today.

God's People who dwelt in other nations were not required to be under Moses Law.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Faith does not nullify God's Law, as seen in the law of Moses.

This is what I've been saying (because that's what the Bible says).

Now explain to me why you feel it necessary to insist this true statement (from Romans 3:31) was only for the Jews. Does the faith of gentiles not also 'not' nullify God's law as revealed to us in the law of Moses?

Gentiles were not required to keep Moses law.

What does this argument, right or wrong, have to do with the fact that faith in Christ--whoever has it and walks in it--upholds, not nullifies, God's law as revealed to us in the law of Moses?

I used the Phrase "The WAY of Moses law to serve God and keep His Law, was added to the Abrahamic Covenant.

I did this and explained I was using your terminology.

If you were doing that you failed to get that point (that you were simply using my terminology, not defending it) across. It sure seemed like you were plainly defending your doctrine with the very same thing I was saying, that the law of Moses is itself the old 'way' the people of God were commanded to uphold the requirements of God found in the law.

I also explained this was the opposite of what you stated which was; faith in Christ is the WAY Moses law is upheld.

No, don't twist what I said to add an unwelcome connotation to my argument. I've been saying that faith in Christ, when you have it and walk in it, upholds the requirements of the law of Moses. I say it because that's what the Bible says.

You know this is true, so how is it that you can't see that faith is a new 'way' to uphold the law of Moses, in contrast to the old 'way' of upholding the requirements of God as revealed to us in the law of Moses?

Gentiles are not required to be physically circumcised. This is the first requirement of keeping Moses Law.

Neither is a Jew required to be physically circumcised.

In Romans 2 Paul says if you fulfill the requirements of the law, but are uncircumcised, your uncircumcision will be considered as circumcision. Do you understand?

Circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, which results in obedience to the requirements of the law satisfies to God's complete and total satisfaction the requirement for circumcision. This new 'way' of being circumcised fulfills the requirement for circumcision, not nullifies it, but setting the literal way that was to be done as the obsolete 'way' in which the people of God were to fulfill that requirement of law. Do you want to argue what I just said? Just read the last verses of Romans 2. This is where what I just said comes from.

You countered this by pointing to "Circumcision of the heart".

Just read Romans 2. The new 'way' of being circumcised (circumcised in heart) upholds to God's complete and total satisfaction the requirement of the law to be circumcised. We serve the law of circumcision in the new WAY of the Spirit, not in the old WAY of the written code. Surely you can see this(?)

I agree that "physical Circumcision" points to what God intended, but this does not nullify the requirement that the law of Moses demanded during that time.

This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

The point is, the lawful requirement for circumcision is upheld by the new WAY of having faith in Christ and walking in the Spirit, not in the old WAY of literal cutting. Read Romans 2 and see for yourself. This defends exactly what I've been saying, but which you have not been hearing.

In another words: A Jew could not use the argument, I don't need to be physically Circumcised because my heart is circumcised .

That person would be simply "cut off" from among the people.

Like I say, this has nothing to do with our discussion. We're talking about the role of law in this New Covenant.

Most people in the church say it got abolished (as the rationale to not be obedient). But the Bible says it gets fulfilled, not nullified, by having faith in Christ and walking in the Spirit. Then there are people like you who know the law did not get abolished, but who then confuse the setting aside of the old 'way' of upholding the law of Moses with the new 'way' of upholding the law of Moses.

Physical Circumcision was a requirement of the law of Moses for the children of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

God's People who dwelt in other nations were not required to be under Moses Law.

Which brings up one of many flaws in your varied doctrines about the law. Abraham was a gentile, yet God required circumcision of him and everybody in his household. Then you'll try to counter that by saying that is an eternal law that existed before the law...as if the other requirements of law served by the law of Moses aren't. Very inconsistent doctrine. I could go on.

Example: Persian Gentiles, who lived in Persia, were not circumcised.

Not relevant to the discussion, but anyone who wanted to join themselves to the people of God during the first covenant had to conform to the same law as the natural Jew, with the exception of the laws that directly discriminated against gentiles (Feast of Tabernacles for example). As far as I know, circumcision was not one of those exceptions (if it was Acts 15 would never have been written). Even if it was, it's irrelevant to our discussion for Paul plainly explains how circumcision is for all believers. The new 'way' of being circumcised, circumcision of the heart, which upholds, not nullifies the lawful requirement for circumcision, but which does set aside the old way of meeting that lawful requirement.

There's no acceptable reason why you should not be getting this by now. None.

Gentiles today are not required to be physically circumcised.

Neither are Jews, so what's the relevance to this discussion? But as I've been showing you the lawful requirement for circumcision did not 'vanish'. The old 'way' of fulfilling that lawful requirement did.

(Surely you gotta' be getting this by now.)

The Foundational Requirement of God's Law is Obedience, as seen from the beginning in the Garden.

The Old Covenant has vanished away.

Yes, the old 'way' of serving God throught he literal 'way' of the first covenant has vanished. But even you have to acknowledge that the lawful requirement for circumcision itself did not vanish. This matter of circumcision illustrates exactly what I've been saying: The old way of circumcision went away. But the requirement for circumcision did not. Do you want to argue the point?

The requirement to keep God's Law, that was seen within that Covenant, has not Vanished away.

God's Laws do not vanish away.

The law of Moses was added UNTIL the seed should come.

Surely by now you can see that what you're saying is the WAY God's law is upheld is what is new, NOT THE REQUIREMENTS OF HIS LAW THEMSELVES. Circumcision being the exact illustration of what I'm saying.

I believe God's Laws that were seen within Moses law are eternal and should be kept Today.

God's People who dwelt in other nations were not required to be under Moses Law.


JLB

And I again I have to ask, why is this relevant to the discussion? Our discussion has nothing to do with who was supposed to keep the literal way of the law of Moses during the first covenant. It has everything to do with all the people of God upholding those requirements when they have faith in Christ and walk obediently in the Spirit. Circumcision as we've just discussed it being one of the two most obvious illustrations of how the law is upheld by faith and obedience, not in the literal WAY of the first covenant, but in the new WAY of faith in Christ.

Truthfully, if you can't get this by now there's really nothing more I can say. I've answered all of your questions as far as I know. If you still aren't getting it, I suggest you go back and answer the dozen or more questions I asked that you didn't answer. The questions were asked to help you understand the argument. So if you want to understand the argument go back and answer all those questions I asked and stop adding more and more of your commentary to the discussion.

 

[JLB]

This is what I've been saying (because that's what the Bible says).

Now explain to me why you feel it necessary to insist this true statement (from Romans 3:31) was only for the Jews. Does the faith of gentiles not also 'not' nullify God's law as revealed to us in the law of Moses?



What does this argument, right or wrong, have to do with the fact that faith in Christ--whoever has it and walks in it--upholds, not nullifies, God's law as revealed to us in the law of Moses?



If you were doing that you failed to get that point (that you were simply using my terminology, not defending it) across. It sure seemed like you were plainly defending your doctrine with the very same thing I was saying, that the law of Moses is itself the old 'way' the people of God were commanded to uphold the requirements of God found in the law.



No, don't twist what I said to add an unwelcome connotation to my argument. I've been saying that faith in Christ, when you have it and walk in it, upholds the requirements of the law of Moses. I say it because that's what the Bible says.

You know this is true, so how is it that you can't see that faith is a new 'way' to uphold the law of Moses, in contrast to the old 'way' of upholding the requirements of God as revealed to us in the law of Moses?



Neither is a Jew required to be physically circumcised.

In Romans 2 Paul says if you fulfill the requirements of the law, but are uncircumcised, your uncircumcision will be considered as circumcision. Do you understand?

Circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, which results in obedience to the requirements of the law satisfies to God's complete and total satisfaction the requirement for circumcision. This new 'way' of being circumcised fulfills the requirement for circumcision, not nullifies it, but setting the literal way that was to be done as the obsolete 'way' in which the people of God were to fulfill that requirement of law. Do you want to argue what I just said? Just read the last verses of Romans 2. This is where what I just said comes from.



Just read Romans 2. The new 'way' of being circumcised (circumcised in heart) upholds to God's complete and total satisfaction the requirement of the law to be circumcised. We serve the law of circumcision in the new WAY of the Spirit, not in the old WAY of the written code. Surely you can see this(?)


This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

The point is, the lawful requirement for circumcision is upheld by the new WAY of having faith in Christ and walking in the Spirit, not in the old WAY of literal cutting. Read Romans 2 and see for yourself. This defends exactly what I've been saying, but which you have not been hearing.



Like I say, this has nothing to do with our discussion. We're talking about the role of law in this New Covenant.

Most people in the church say it got abolished (as the rationale to not be obedient). But the Bible says it gets fulfilled, not nullified, by having faith in Christ and walking in the Spirit. Then there are people like you who know the law did not get abolished, but who then confuse the setting aside of the old 'way' of upholding the law of Moses with the new 'way' of upholding the law of Moses.



Which brings up one of many flaws in your varied doctrines about the law. Abraham was a gentile, yet God required circumcision of him and everybody in his household. Then you'll try to counter that by saying that is an eternal law that existed before the law...as if the other requirements of law served by the law of Moses aren't. Very inconsistent doctrine. I could go on.


Not relevant to the discussion, but anyone who wanted to join themselves to the people of God during the first covenant had to conform to the same law as the natural Jew, with the exception of the laws that directly discriminated against gentiles (Feast of Tabernacles for example). As far as I know, circumcision was not one of those exceptions (if it was Acts 15 would never have been written). Even if it was, it's irrelevant to our discussion for Paul plainly explains how circumcision is for all believers. The new 'way' of being circumcised, circumcision of the heart, which upholds, not nullifies the lawful requirement for circumcision, but which does set aside the old way of meeting that lawful requirement.

There's no acceptable reason why you should not be getting this by now. None.



Neither are Jews, so what's the relevance to this discussion? But as I've been showing you the lawful requirement for circumcision did not 'vanish'. The old 'way' of fulfilling that lawful requirement did.

(Surely you gotta' be getting this by now.)






Yes, the old 'way' of serving God throught he literal 'way' of the first covenant has vanished. But even you have to acknowledge that the lawful requirement for circumcision itself did not vanish. This matter of circumcision illustrates exactly what I've been saying: The old way of circumcision went away. But the requirement for circumcision did not. Do you want to argue the point?



Surely by now you can see that what you're saying is the WAY God's law is upheld is what is new, NOT THE REQUIREMENTS OF HIS LAW THEMSELVES. Circumcision being the exact illustration of what I'm saying.



And I again I have to ask, why is this relevant to the discussion? Our discussion has nothing to do with who was supposed to keep the literal way of the law of Moses during the first covenant. It has everything to do with all the people of God upholding those requirements when they have faith in Christ and walk obediently in the Spirit. Circumcision as we've just discussed it being one of the two most obvious illustrations of how the law is upheld by faith and obedience, not in the literal WAY of the first covenant, but in the new WAY of faith in Christ.

Truthfully, if you can't get this by now there's really nothing more I can say. I've answered all of your questions as far as I know. If you still aren't getting it, I suggest you go back and answer the dozen or more questions I asked that you didn't answer. The questions were asked to help you understand the argument. So if you want to understand the argument go back and answer all those questions I asked and stop adding more and more of your commentary to the discussion.

Brother, I have heard what you have said, over and over again. Most of what you have said I agree with.

Lets focus on this one point that I have been making.

Here is the point:

At the time of Moses Law, Gentiles who were living outside the Land of Israel, and were considered the children of God the way Abraham was, were not under the law of Moses.

Gentiles who were the children of God, yet were not the children of Israel, were not under the law of Moses.

The law of Moses, in that time, required physical circumcision, a Levitical priesthood to administer sacrifices, adherence to specified days and weeks and years, food laws ...

Do you agree that Gentiles who were God's children, were not required to keep all the law of Moses?

JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Brother, I have heard what you have said, over and over again. Most of what you have said I agree with.

Lets focus on this one point that I have been making.

Here is the point:

At the time of Moses Law, Gentiles who were living outside the Land of Israel, and were considered the children of God the way Abraham was, were not under the law of Moses.

Gentiles who were the children of God, yet were not the children of Israel, were not under the law of Moses.

The law of Moses, in that time, required physical circumcision, a Levitical priesthood to administer sacrifices, adherence to specified days and weeks and years, food laws ...

Do you agree that Gentiles who were God's children, were not required to keep all the law of Moses?

JLB

I already answered this question that has nothing to do with our discussion. Yes, a gentile who wanted to join himself to the people of God had to conform to the same law as the native Israelite.

Now, answer my question.

Name the command in the law of Moses that does NOT get upheld by the gentile who believes in Christ and, as a result, walks by the Spirit.

(Galatians 5:6,14 NIV)