Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Law, works and keeping his comandments

JLB where does this term come from? God's Eternal Kingdom laws are written on our heart, and do not include:
 
Ok JLB i got it... :)

Will you post the "law of Moses" Or the chapters and verses ?

These are the statutes and judgments and laws which the Lord made between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses. Leviticus 26:46


24 So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, Deuteronomy 31:24


as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the Law of Moses: "an altar of whole stones over which no man has wielded an iron tool." And they offered on it burnt offerings to the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings. Joshua 8:31
 
JLB where does this term come from? God's Eternal Kingdom laws are written on our heart, and do not include:

31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31-33
 
When a person has a problem with a 's' at the end of word do you think its a good idea to add things like God's Eternal Kingdom? How about being balanced?
 
[FONT="]Originally Posted by Jethro Bodine [/FONT]
[FONT="]Sabbath keeping doctrine says Sabbath keeping is a greater expression of the command to love God than 'love your neighbor as yourself' is. I say, scripturally, this is simply not true. In fact, not even close. Those who adhere to the Mosaic worship commands are not the only ones who believe this. It's just that the rest of us in the church have different expressions of love for God that we think are greater expressions of love for God than the command to love him by treating people nicely and with respect and being at peace with them. [/FONT]

[FONT="]The 'law' of the church today that is regarded as the most important expression of love for God is church attendance, church service, reading the Bible, prayer, baptism, operating in a gift, witnessing, giving to the church, and carefully adhering to a particular worship style and doctrinal statement. We are just as deceived as the law keeping crowd, just in regard to different expressions of the command to 'love God'. [/FONT]

[FONT="]Obedience is better than sacrifice. [/FONT]

[FONT="]And God doesn't even want the sacrifice of our worship and service unless we first obey him in being at peace with others ([/FONT][FONT="]Matthew 5:24 NIV[/FONT][FONT="]). [/FONT]

[FONT="]This seems to be the elusive truth of the church. This is what being on the narrow road that few find is all about. Love for others, including our enemies (especially?), is the great distinguishing mark between those who really do know God and those who just think they do, deceived by the sacrifice of their worship and service ([/FONT][FONT="]Matthew 7:21-23 NIV[/FONT][FONT="]) and their association with and exposure to the ways and teachings of Christ and the church ([/FONT][FONT="]Luke 13:26-27 NIV[/FONT][FONT="]). [/FONT]

[FONT="]We each have the obligation to show we really do know God and have his approval in salvation by loving others and treating them kindly, compassionately, and with respect. If we can't do that then we have to take a hard look at ourselves to see whether we really are saved or not. That's what 'making our calling and election sure' is all about. A tree is judged by it's fruit, not by it's outer adornment of leaves. The people of God seem to do well at majoring in the showy leaves of the kingdom, and not so much in bearing the fruit of the kingdom.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Probably the best worded and most relevant teaching I have ever read on any Christian Forum, ever.[/FONT]



JLB
 
When a person has a problem with a 's' at the end of word do you think its a good idea to add things like God's Eternal Kingdom? How about being balanced?

The Law of Moses is a complete law [legal contract] that can not be divided up into "laws".


That is the point.


JLB
 
[FONT="]Originally Posted by Jethro Bodine [/FONT]
[FONT="]Sabbath keeping doctrine says Sabbath keeping is a greater expression of the command to love God than 'love your neighbor as yourself' is. I say, scripturally, this is simply not true. In fact, not even close. Those who adhere to the Mosaic worship commands are not the only ones who believe this. It's just that the rest of us in the church have different expressions of love for God that we think are greater expressions of love for God than the command to love him by treating people nicely and with respect and being at peace with them. [/FONT]

[FONT="]The 'law' of the church today that is regarded as the most important expression of love for God is church attendance, church service, reading the Bible, prayer, baptism, operating in a gift, witnessing, giving to the church, and carefully adhering to a particular worship style and doctrinal statement. We are just as deceived as the law keeping crowd, just in regard to different expressions of the command to 'love God'. [/FONT]

[FONT="]Obedience is better than sacrifice. [/FONT]

[FONT="]And God doesn't even want the sacrifice of our worship and service unless we first obey him in being at peace with others ([/FONT][FONT="]Matthew 5:24 NIV[/FONT][FONT="]). [/FONT]

[FONT="]This seems to be the elusive truth of the church. This is what being on the narrow road that few find is all about. Love for others, including our enemies (especially?), is the great distinguishing mark between those who really do know God and those who just think they do, deceived by the sacrifice of their worship and service ([/FONT][FONT="]Matthew 7:21-23 NIV[/FONT][FONT="]) and their association with and exposure to the ways and teachings of Christ and the church ([/FONT][FONT="]Luke 13:26-27 NIV[/FONT][FONT="]). [/FONT]

[FONT="]We each have the obligation to show we really do know God and have his approval in salvation by loving others and treating them kindly, compassionately, and with respect. If we can't do that then we have to take a hard look at ourselves to see whether we really are saved or not. That's what 'making our calling and election sure' is all about. A tree is judged by it's fruit, not by it's outer adornment of leaves. The people of God seem to do well at majoring in the showy leaves of the kingdom, and not so much in bearing the fruit of the kingdom.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Probably the best worded and most relevant teaching I have ever read on any Christian Forum, ever.[/FONT]



JLB

I'm flattered, and I hardly know what to say. Thank you.

I hope you don't think I've been contradicting myself by what I've been saying here in this thread. I can see that what I've been saying here, and from what you and Deb are saying in rebuttal, that what you're hearing is not what I've been saying. It's frustrating. But my guns are loaded and ready to fire again, lol.
 
JLB where does this term come from? God's Eternal Kingdom laws are written on our heart, and do not include:

31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31-33

The 'not according to' refers to where the law is written.

And because it's now a matter of the true intent and heart of the law, that law gets fulfilled (not abolished) according to it's spiritual fulfillment, not fulfillment according to the literal letter of the law (think circumcision, and sacrifice for sin, and the Sabbath observance).
 
Right. The WAY of fulfilling those eternal laws was temporary, most of which could only be kept in the Land. How does this make the requirements of the law of Moses themselves (the eternal requirement for Rest, the eternal requirement for blood, the eternal requirement for love, etc.) somehow also included in the temporary aspects of the law of Moses?

We read in Hebrews how the old WAY of keeping the Day of Atonement is no longer needed because it was temporary, and that Christ is the fulfillment of the requirements of the Day of Atonement, not a new law of atonement. The old WAY of the Day of Atonement is laid aside NOT THE DAY OF ATONEMENT ITSELF, giving way to the new WAY the requirement for a Day of Atonement is kept, through faith in Christ, not through the letter of the written code (Romans 7:6 NIV). I challenge you to use those very scriptures in Hebrews to prove me wrong.




The WAY of the law of Moses was added. Even you're acknowledging that it isn't the fundamental requirements of the law of Moses that were added. It is THE WAY THOSE ETERNAL LAWS WERE TO BE FULFILLED that got temporarily added.


God's Eternal Kingdom laws are written on our heart, and do not include:

Sacrificing animals
Levitical priesthood
Food laws
Feast days
Killing people that don't keep the Sabbath
Utterly destroying our enemies
Temple
You are so utterly and completely wrong.

ALL of these continue to be fulfilled to this very day, and will be in the future. But you won't get it if you continue to only think in the rut of the indoctrination of law in the church today.

What you are arguing for, and don't actually realize, is the truths these things represent are eternal kingdom truths, and that it is the WAY these things are kept that was added temporarily and then laid aside, NOT THE TRUTH BEING UPHELD.


No, brother.

You don't get to sidestep and ignore the discussion that you started with the scripture you quoted -

You haven't acknowledged it because you decided to violate plain grammatical
sense and redefine 'law', the one that gets upheld, in the last part of this
verse: "31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all!
Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans
http://biblia.com/bible/niv/Romans 3.313:31 NIV)


You have been shown that verse 31 does not apply to those who are NOT under the law of Moses.

"those"who are not under the law, are not in the context of verse 31.

You yourself have chosen to violate the clear context of what Paul is saying, and have wrongly applied verse 31 to include those who are not under the law of Moses.

Now you intend to start another subject, based on your faulty premise of Romans 3:31 and continue to belabor and invalid point.

Furthermore, you added words such as "requirements", and phrases such as "the way we keep the law", when scripture makes no such mention of these words and phrases that you wrongly assume, because of your faulty understanding of Paul's letter to the Romans.


Please acknowledge that you now understand that Paul is not referring to Gentile Christians in Romans 3:31 "upholding the Law", but rather those who are under the law.


JLB

I actually came here this morning to address this, but I've run out of time.

I'll be back...
 
Try Romans 6.14; Galatians 5.18

Blessings.

Correct. If you walk by the Spirit you will be in no violation of the law, nor will the law be able to provoke you to violate the law. IOW, when you walk according to the Spirit you will not be 'under' the law. But walking by the Spirit does uphold the law.

And that should be obvious since walking by the Spirit doesn't violate any of the law. If it doesn't violate it, it upholds it. (This is what I've been saying all along). If anybody disagrees with that, tell me why.
 
You don't get to sidestep and ignore the discussion that you started with the scripture you quoted -

You haven't acknowledged it because you decided to violate plain grammatical
sense and redefine 'law', the one that gets upheld, in the last part of this
verse: "31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all!
Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans
http://biblia.com/bible/niv/Romans 3.313:31 NIV)


You have been shown that verse 31 does not apply to those who are NOT under the law of Moses.

"those"who are not under the law, are not in the context of verse 31.

You yourself have chosen to violate the clear context of what Paul is saying, and have wrongly applied verse 31 to include those who are not under the law of Moses.

Now you intend to start another subject, based on your faulty premise of Romans 3:31 and continue to belabor and invalid point.

Furthermore, you added words such as "requirements", and phrases such as "the way we keep the law", when scripture makes no such mention of these words and phrases that you wrongly assume, because of your faulty understanding of Paul's letter to the Romans.


Please acknowledge that you now understand that Paul is not referring to Gentile Christians in Romans 3:31 "upholding the Law", but rather those who are under the law.


JLB
Look at verse 31:

"31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Romans 3:31 KJV)

Based on the context just prior to this, do you agree that Paul is saying this...

"Do we then make void the law (of works) through (the law of) faith? God forbid..." (parentheses mine)

(I purposely left off the 'law' that you disagree with me about, the last one. We'll get to that next.)

Do you agree that the context supports the additions of what I put in parentheses?

The sentence only makes grammatical sense according to what I say 'law' means in the sentence, not what you say it does.
 
You don't get to sidestep and ignore the discussion that you started with the scripture you quoted -

You haven't acknowledged it because you decided to violate plain grammatical
sense and redefine 'law', the one that gets upheld, in the last part of this
verse: "31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all!
Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans
http://biblia.com/bible/niv/Romans 3.313:31 NIV)


You have been shown that verse 31 does not apply to those who are NOT under the law of Moses.

"those"who are not under the law, are not in the context of verse 31.

You yourself have chosen to violate the clear context of what Paul is saying, and have wrongly applied verse 31 to include those who are not under the law of Moses.

Now you intend to start another subject, based on your faulty premise of Romans 3:31 and continue to belabor and invalid point.

Furthermore, you added words such as "requirements", and phrases such as "the way we keep the law", when scripture makes no such mention of these words and phrases that you wrongly assume, because of your faulty understanding of Paul's letter to the Romans.


Please acknowledge that you now understand that Paul is not referring to Gentile Christians in Romans 3:31 "upholding the Law", but rather those who are under the law.


JLB
Look at verse 31:

"31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Romans 3:31 KJV)

Based on the context just prior to this, do you agree that Paul is saying this...

"Do we then make void the law (of works) through (the law of) faith? God forbid..." (parentheses mine)

(I purposely left off the 'law' that you disagree with me about, the last one. We'll get to that next.)

Do you agree that the context supports the additions of what I put in parentheses?

The sentence only makes grammatical sense according to what I say 'law' means in the sentence, not what you say it does.

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. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. Romans 3:29-31

What I have said, I will say again.

The "we" in verse 31 refers to those who are under the Law, meaning Jews.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law

"We", in verse 31 does not include Gentile Christians, "upholding the law".


JLB
 
Look at verse 31:

"31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Romans 3:31 KJV)

Based on the context just prior to this, do you agree that Paul is saying this...

"Do we then make void the law (of works) through (the law of) faith? God forbid..." (parentheses mine)

(I purposely left off the 'law' that you disagree with me about, the last one. We'll get to that next.)

Do you agree that the context supports the additions of what I put in parentheses?

The sentence only makes grammatical sense according to what I say 'law' means in the sentence, not what you say it does.

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. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. Romans 3:29-31

What I have said, I will say again.

The "we" in verse 31 refers to those who are under the Law, meaning Jews.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law

"We", in verse 31 does not include Gentile Christians, "upholding the law".


JLB
Okay, it seems, then, you agree that the 'law' that gets upheld is indeed the very law of Moses. Paul is saying that faith, as opposed to law, is what upholds the law. And, obviously, that only makes sense as meaning the WAY of faith upholds the (requirements of) the law.

Which is what the obedience in this New Covenant is all about: being able to obey God (that is, satisfy the righteous requirements of God spelled out in the law--'do not steal', etc.) through the new WAY of faith in Christ, not in the old WAY of just having written words and trying to obey them in the power of the flesh, Romans 7:6. (That only arouses sin all the more putting us further under the condemnation of the law).

Any objections so far?


Now to this matter of 'we', meaning only the Jews are 'under' the law...

The very passage you use to define 'we' as being Jews only is the very passage that shows us that the 'whole world' is 'under' the law, not just the Jews who possess the law, and shows who is under the condemnation of the law, not just the responsibilities of the law (it's requirements).

"9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,

“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin (to ALL the world, not just Jews)" (Romans 3:9-20 NASB parenthesis mine)


See? Paul is talking about 'sinners'. He asks, are we Jews any better than (gentile) sinners? NO! We are all alike, Jew and gentile alike, under the bondage of sin--the bondage of sin that the law, the same law, provokes in all men, and which brings the resulting condemnation of the law to all men, both Jew and gentile. He shows that 'we' Jews is really 'the whole world', all 'under' the bondage of sin provoked by the law and, therefore, all 'under' the condemnation of sinners by the law.

So we see, to be 'under' the law means to be in the flesh and, therefore, subject to the provocation of the law that arouses the sin in our natural selves, and in turn, puts us under the condemnation of the law. So it is sinners, all those, Jew and gentile alike, who have fallen short of the glory of God. They are the ones under the law. Those same sinners, Jew and gentile, when they come to faith, then uphold the law (satisfy what the law requires) through faith in Christ, not nullify it. Which is exactly what he says elsewhere:

Faith produces love:
"...faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6 NASB)

Love in turn fulfills (upholds, satisfies, etc.) the commandments of God found in the law of Moses:
"...he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10 NASB)


I know this is heavy duty, and to follow what I'm saying essentially means studying it like you would a college homework assignment, but that's just the way this matter of law is.

Your rebuttal is welcome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, it seems, then, you agree that the 'law' that gets upheld is indeed the very law of Moses. Paul is saying that faith, as opposed to law, is what upholds the law. And, obviously, that only makes sense as meaning the WAY of faith upholds the (requirements of) the law. Which is what the obedience in this New Covenant is all about: being able to obey God (that is, satisfy the righteous requirements of God spelled out in the law--'do not steal', etc.) through the new WAY of faith in Christ, not in the old WAY of just having written words and trying to obey them in the power of the flesh, Romans 7:6. (That only arouses sin all the more putting us further under the condemnation of the law). Any objections so far?


Gentiles were never required to keep the Law of Moses, even when it was in force.

Now that the Seed has come and fulfilled the Law, which was a shadow of good things to come, are you now saying that Gentile Christians are required to uphold the law of Moses?

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law,...

As soon as you come to grips with this simple truth, you will stop trying to conceive of another way to get Christians to feel obligated to keep Moses Law.


9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,

Yes, Thank you. Sin was in the world long before Moses was born.

Tell me now, you who want to uphold the law of Moses, which of Moses law did Adam transgress?
Obeying His Voice, is what Abraham was commended for.

Disobeying His Voice is what condemned all of mankind to death.

Obedience is the standard of righteousness.

Please do not try and use Romans 3:31 to justify your belief that Gentiles are to uphold Moses Law. You have been shown clearly that Romans 3:31 is referring to "those who are under the law".

The Lord's desire for mankind is to learn from Him, not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

That is what Adam violated.

We have been given God's Spirit and His nature for this very purpose.

We can learn many beautiful truths from all the scriptures.

The 10 commandments are for us to learn today.

But how does that cover where we are to live, who we are to be connected to?

What our purpose in the kingdom is?

How does that cover, How to walk in the Spirit?

How does a person dwell in the secret place of the Most High, so that he abides in the shadow of the Almighty.

You can not even understand the scriptures unless the Holy Spirit has revealed it to you.

There are millions of things, over a lifetime, that only The Spirit of God can show you.

Abraham obeyed God Himself when He was told to -"Get out of your country, From your family And from your father's house, To a land that I will show you. 2 I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. Genesis 12:1-2


This is the pattern we are to follow.


When a person is led by the Spirit, they fulfill the law of obedience and the law of faith and righteousness and love.


Why won't you acknowledge these vital truths that we learn from the Old Testament, long before Moses was born.


Why are you so afraid of a requirement that involves you seeking God and being led by God's Spirit?


JLB
 
Gentiles were never required to keep the Law of Moses, even when it was in force.

Now that the Seed has come and fulfilled the Law, which was a shadow of good things to come, are you now saying that Gentile Christians are required to uphold the law of Moses?
I won't say another word until you tell me what you think I mean 'upholding the law' means.

So, what do you think I mean when I say faith upholds the law of Moses? Describe for me what you think I am saying 'upholding the law' looks like in the life of the believer.

I'm not even reading the rest of your post until you help me know what you think I've been saying about this. I don't have time to continue a discussion you can not hear because you missed this fundamental point of my argument.

Deb, feel free to answer the question, too, please.
 
Gentiles were never required to keep the Law of Moses, even when it was in force.

Now that the Seed has come and fulfilled the Law, which was a shadow of good things to come, are you now saying that Gentile Christians are required to uphold the law of Moses?
I won't say another word until you tell me what you think I mean 'upholding the law' means.

So, what do you think I mean when I say faith upholds the law of Moses? Describe for me what you think I am saying 'upholding the law' looks like in the life of the believer.

I'm not even reading the rest of your post until you help me know what you think I've been saying about this. I don't have time to continue a discussion you can not hear because you missed this fundamental point of my argument.

Deb, feel free to answer the question, too, please.


JLB, you're probably busy constructing a rebuttal, and that's fine (this may well be my favorite subject to talk about).


It was your favorite subject until your "airtight" irrefutable scripture that you have based your doctrine on, was shown to be exempt from the whole discussion because it doesn't pertain to you or I or Gentiles.

It pertains to those who are under the law, as Paul used this legal argument to prove his point.

It doesn't matter what I think you mean by 'upholding the law'.

It doesn't have any relevance because it is a moot point.

Gentile Christians were never "under the law", and therefore not required to uphold or establish the Law of Moses.

If you would like to discuss the topic of this thread further, then please do so.

I love what you wrote earlier as I re-posted it to show how much I appreciate what you wrote, and the relevance it carries for us today.

However, the fact is, The Law and Prophets is not a reference to the law of Moses.

On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:40



JLB
 
Gentiles were never required to keep the Law of Moses, even when it was in force.

Now that the Seed has come and fulfilled the Law, which was a shadow of good things to come, are you now saying that Gentile Christians are required to uphold the law of Moses?
I won't say another word until you tell me what you think I mean 'upholding the law' means.

So, what do you think I mean when I say faith upholds the law of Moses? Describe for me what you think I am saying 'upholding the law' looks like in the life of the believer.

I'm not even reading the rest of your post until you help me know what you think I've been saying about this. I don't have time to continue a discussion you can not hear because you missed this fundamental point of my argument.

Deb, feel free to answer the question, too, please.


JLB, you're probably busy constructing a rebuttal, and that's fine (this may well be my favorite subject to talk about).


It was your favorite subject until your "airtight" irrefutable scripture that you have based your doctrine on, was shown to be exempt from the whole discussion because it doesn't pertain to you or I or Gentiles.

It pertains to those who are under the law, as Paul used this legal argument to prove his point.

It doesn't matter what I think you mean by 'upholding the law'.

It doesn't have any relevance because it is a moot point.

Gentile Christians were never "under the law", and therefore not required to uphold or establish the Law of Moses.

If you would like to discuss the topic of this thread further, then please do so.

I love what you wrote earlier as I re-posted it to show how much I appreciate what you wrote, and the relevance it carries for us today.

However, the fact is, The Law and Prophets is not a reference to the law of Moses.

On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:40



JLB

I quit posting because you obviously weren't understanding my posts.

Romans 13:8-10 is another place where Paul says that when we walk in the Spirit (love others) we fulfill, NOT ABOLISH, the law of Moses ('do not steal', 'do not...', etc.).

But you're showing me that, like so many others in the church, that you are sure I'm advocating a return to literal Mosaic worship. Hardly! But how can I communicate that if you're simply not getting it no matter how hard I try to break this down?

Hebrews is where we find the key to understanding this matter of the law and the first covenant. There the author talks about the Day of Atonement. He explains how the requirements fulfilled in the keeping of a Day of Atonement are forever met and satisfied for us in the body and blood of Christ. The requirements themselves were NOT abolished by Christ. They were fulfilled (satisfied). What got laid aside was HOW we fulfill the lawful requirement for a Day of Atonement. IOW, the WAY of the first covenant got laid aside, not the requirement itself fulfilled in the Day of Atonement.

This explanation, right under our big fat noses in scripture, removes the man-made necessity to invent a doctrine about a different 'law' to explain how the law is taken away, yet is not taken away in Christ.

Pretty reasonable stuff. And why not. It's right out of the pages of our sacred Bibles.
 
Back
Top