The nation of Israel was given the Law,and it was never given to the the Gentiles

[Stormcrow]

water baptism and is for "remission of sins", "to be saved", to become "a new creature", to be in the "one body", to have sins "washed away'', and to be "in Christ" and to "put on Christ. That water baptism is a COMMAND to be obeyed by all accountable people to the end of the world.

So a "work of the flesh" has supplanted the blood of Christ as the cause for remission of sin and salvation?

{27} And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; {28} for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:27-28 (NASB)

{21} But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, {22} even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; {23} for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, {24} being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; {25} whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; {26} for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26 (NASB)

Not one single word about water baptism in either the last supper or Paul's letter to the Romans!

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

You may boast in your water baptism. I will boast in the blood of Christ.

 

[Asyncritus]

So a "work of the flesh" has supplanted the blood of Christ as the cause for remission of sin and salvation?
[...]
You may boast in your water baptism. I will boast in the blood of Christ.

I have never heard anyone refer to water baptism as a 'work of the flesh' before.

In case you've either forgotten or didn't know, EVERY ONE OF THE EPISTLES IN THE NT was written to people who had been water-baptised.

Therefore, underlying every one of the statements you have quoted, is the FACT that those people had ALREADY EXPERIENCED water-baptism.

Take Eph 2 for example:

Here's the history of that church in the Acts:

1 ¶ And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

Note, baptism plays a prominent role in the questioning.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

They WERE BAPTIZED.

Then:

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Now these are the same people, presumably, that he sent the letter to.

These are the same people he's telling that works don't save them.

BUT THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN BAPTIZED! By Paul himself at that!

So clearly, he did not regard baptism as a 'work of the flesh' which he opposed all the way through his life.

Neither should you.

PS

BTW , have you read Romans recently? Maybe you should have a look at ch 6, as the complete refutation of this comment:

Not one single word about water baptism in either the last supper or Paul's letter to the Romans!

As an example:
6.3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

I guess you're right - it's not a SINGLE word - it's quite a lot of them!

 

[Stormcrow]

Therefore, underlying every one of the statements you have quoted, is the FACT that those people had ALREADY EXPERIENCED water-baptism.

How many of them did it save?

6.3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

Please show me where the word "water" exists in either of the passages you cited. In the meantime, chew on this:

{11} "As for me, I [John] baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He [Christ] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Matthew 3:11 (NASB)

Water, water everywhere except when it comes to the baptism of Christ.

 

[Stormcrow]

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

Note, baptism plays a prominent role in the questioning.

You'll also note John's baptism meant nothing to Paul, as he then offered them the gospel of Christ and His baptism:

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

John's was a baptism of repentance, NOT salvation. Their belief in Christ saved them!!!

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. They WERE BAPTIZED.

Then Paul baptized them in Christ's baptism and this baptism had NO WATER IN IT, as demonstrated in your following example!

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Paul didn't baptize with water because Christ did not baptize with water! John did.

Water baptism never saved anyone because it cannot save anyone, and never has!

The insistence that water baptism is required for salvation - as refuted in your own example - is the very kind of thing Paul fought the Judaizers over! It is not "Christ's blood plus water baptism saves" and never has been! It was, is, and always will be about and only about the blood of Christ! To add anything to the work Christ did on the cross is not only false teaching, it's a false gospel!

 

[smaller]

Murder has never been sanctioned in any age or dealing God has had with man and the injunction against it goes all the way back to Cain:

{11} "Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. {12} "When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth." Genesis 4:11-12 (NASB)

The injunction against murder preceded both Law and grace. Therefore murder - like other things God deems sinful (idolatry, covetousness) - does not establish a common, let alone permanent, bond between Law and grace, as it - again - precedes both!

There is clearly a difference between Law and grace which is what Paul consistently illustrated in his letters!

Anyone who has studied the subject matter knows that Paul played both sides of the isle on Law.

Without a bit of understanding there is no logical way to harmonize the conflicts, like here for example:

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

God forbid for easy reader purposes means NO.

Do we make void the law? NO. Pretty simple. It's the OPPOSITE. Paul upheld and established the Law.

The short version of the law lesson is that the LAW is written and remains fully against SIN and all have SIN.

The nasty part is that SIN is of the devil, and that's exactly where the LAW sticks in everyones throat who looks upon it.

Why? Because the DEVIL in man doesn't really care for Gods Words, particularly LAW.

Satan in believers has dreamed up a whole bunch of imaginative ways to ELIMINATE Gods Words, particularly Words of the LAW.

Thankfully God is a little schmarter.

If you throw away the Law, you also throw away the Words of Jesus by requirement. Jesus wrote the Law!

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

100 people can look at the above verse and 99 of them can't see it.

Kinda weird huh. The Good News, hidden in plain sight.

s

 

[Stormcrow]

If you throw away the Law, you also throw away the Words of Jesus by requirement. Jesus wrote the Law!

So then by following the Law, are we to assume you zealously keep these laws, too?


{3} ~'If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. Leviticus 1:3 (NASB)


{1} 'Now when anyone presents a grain offering as an offering to the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour, and he shall pour oil on it and put frankincense on it. Leviticus 2:1 (NASB)


{1} 'Now if his offering is a sacrifice of peace offerings, if he is going to offer out of the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without defect before the LORD. Leviticus 3:1 (NASB)


{2} "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, {3} if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the LORD a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. Leviticus 4:2-3 (NASB)


{5} ~'So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned. {6} ~'He shall also bring his guilt offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin. Leviticus 5:5-6 (NASB)


{12} ~'Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you. Leviticus 11:12 (NASB)


I could go on and on with all the laws you probably don’t keep (many because you can’t!), so my question is simply this: why do you insist that others keep laws that you can’t or won’t keep yourself???


Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?


{38} "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, {39} and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. Acts 13:38-39 (NASB)

 

[smaller]

So then by following the Law, are we to assume you zealously keep these laws, too?

The purpose of the Law has never changed. It is against 'all' lawlessness and sin. It will never go away, period.

And no, the sin present within us does not nor can it ever be 'legal.'

So please put your legalist yardstick away because that is not where I come from whatsoever.

The Law can stand perfectly fine for proving sin to be present 'IN ALL' and that job it does exceptionally well regardless of any attempt to silent that fact.

I could go on and on with all the laws you probably don’t keep (many because you can’t!),

Never said otherwise SC

so my question is simply this: why do you insist that others keep laws that you can’t or won’t keep yourself???

I believe the LAW is kept by those who read and put to practice Romans 13:8-10. ALL of the law is kept and fulfilled 'exactly' how Paul conveys it, not as how you may view the law.

How we are to see, understand and practice THE LAW is spelled out as Paul spelled it and NOT how you are trying to see it.

Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?

I believe it is the hypocrite who flees from the findings of the law, that being that sin is never LEGAL and that we all have sin.

I accept the Laws findings in this direction as well, even if 'any' seek to flee from that finding. If you find that hypocritical, you'll have to 'splain why, or more importantly why you would fear sin being exposed BY LAW.

s

 

[Stormcrow]

The Law can stand perfectly fine for proving sin to be present 'IN ALL' and that job it does exceptionally well regardless of any attempt to silent that fact.

LOL! Well then, what's the point of the Holy Spirit, then?!?

{7} "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. {8} "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; {9} concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; {10} and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; {11} and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. John 16:7-11 (NASB)

Your legalism (and that's EXACTLY what it is) leaves NO ROOM for the work of the Holy Spirit. Why Christ bothered to send Him at all is beyond me, quite frankly!

THANK GOD WE STILL HAVE THE LAW! (Or do we?!?!?)

{24} Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. {25} But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. {26} For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:24-26 (NASB)

You should really ask Paul why he was trying to "silent" the law!

:toofunny

 

[jasoncran]

the law while not abolished is written in mens hearts now per jeremiah 31.

even the jews now teach that when the messiah comes this will occur. hmm

jesus didnt abolish it , he fulfilled it. meaning that we have it in our hearts.

do i need to quote the book and chapter to show that. yes we can use the written word to know what sin is but when its put down and you sin. what convicts you. the holy spirit and he always refer back to the or any verse.

 

[Stormcrow]

jesus didnt abolish it , he fulfilled it.

The Law was a covenant - a contract - between Israel and God that was "fulfilled" at the cross:

{15} For this reason He [Christ] is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. {16} For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. {17} For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. Hebrews 9:15-17 (NASB)

No one received eternal life under the Old Covenant until the Old Covenant was fulfilled. That contract was paid in full (fulfilled) by the death of Christ on the Cross. We are all under a New Covenant now, having nothing at all to do with the Old.

There is not one thing required from the Old Covenant to convict, save, or sanctify a single person now or forevermore. Not one. And people who keep looking to the Law as though it still applies are denigrating Christ's death.

As Paul wrote, those who live by the Law will be judged by the Law. If you, therefore, choose to try and keep the Law you'd better keep every single bit of it, because you will have no mediator in Christ to save you.

 

[jasoncran]

the law wasnt meant to redeem and well i wouldnt say that david and those didnt have eternal life as they knew and did what god commanded to the best of their ability.


its always been by faith, just what was required of the beleiver has been changed. god forgave the ninevehites without the law.

read jonah for that story.

keep in mind it makes more sense to see the law as rule of changes for the former egyptian slaves and to give them order as they were use to a do and dont type of deal.

when paul says it rightoeus it was and is.

im sure them messainic jews you know will agree.

 

[Stormcrow]

the law wasnt meant to redeem

Yep. Which is why it was abolished on the cross. When a contract is fulfilled it no longer has power over those who entered into it. It's done. The provisions of the Old Covenant with regards to sin and salvation were completed on the cross.

The penalty Israel faced for failing to live up to it's part of the contract was fulfilled in 70 AD, as I have explained elsewhere.

 

[smaller]

LOL! Well then, what's the point of the Holy Spirit, then?!?

When we love it IS The Holy Spirit doing so 'in us' and 'with us.'

This does not mean we are then sinless or that the Law no longer proves us to have sin present with us.

Your legalism (and that's EXACTLY what it is) leaves NO ROOM for the work of the Holy Spirit. Why Christ bothered to send Him at all is beyond me, quite frankly!

And your claim is as hollow as the grounds you attempt to use to eliminate lawful facts.

THANK GOD WE STILL HAVE THE LAW! (Or do we?!?!?)

I think Paul is abundantly clear about the Law and more importantly 'how' it is to be both viewed/understood and performed.

And I will repeat Paul's statements and Jesus' statements add up perfectly in this regard.

You should really ask Paul why he was trying to "silent" the law!

Paul assuredly upheld the Law by his own statements.

How people who try to sentimentalize Pauls statements to achieve an outcome that does not match up with statements to the contrary are an entirely different matter.

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

God forbid as a reminder means NO. Do we make void the LAW? NO. Nor did Paul by his own mouth.

Believers who think Paul eliminated Law can't get past the obvious statements to the contrary. Not my problem if they don't understand the Law. So, it's understanding of the law that is in error, not the law itself.

Paul described 'how' to understand and view Law quite sufficiently in Romans 13:8-10 and included therein 'any commandment.'

If you don't accept Paul's conclusion, I can say your conclusion is not in accord with Paul.

s

 

[Stormcrow]

If the Law still exists to convict us of sin, why do I feel absolutely giddy about never having offered a single animal sacrifice anywhere, any time?

Hmmm...My moral compass must be broken. :toofunny

 

[smaller]

If the Law still exists to convict us of sin, why do I feel absolutely giddy about never having offered a single animal sacrifice anywhere, any time?

Hmmm...My moral compass must be broken. :toofunny

You are welcome to mock the fact that the law proves all mankind to be sinners.

Again, not my problem. I accept the finding as truthful.

s

 

[Stormcrow]

And, by the way, the Law was given to Israel and NOT to Gentiles. Ooops. Guess God forgot us when He was passing out commandments.

Why any Gentile should feel guilty for having missed a grain offering is beyond me, quite frankly.

 

[Stormcrow]

You are welcome to mock the fact that the law proves all mankind to be sinners.

Again, the Law of Moses wasn't given to "all mankind." It was given to the children of Israel. As a Gentile, why should I feel guilty for missing a Temple feast???

Do you? If not, maybe your moral compass is broken, too! :toofunny

I accept the finding as truthful.

I accept as truthful the finding that standing in a garage and yelling "I'm a Buick" makes me a Buick.

(In case that last sentence was lost on anyone, simply accepting that something is true doesn't necessarily make it so.)

 

[smaller]

And, by the way, the Law was given to Israel and NOT to Gentiles. Ooops. Guess God forgot us when He was passing out commandments.

Why any Gentile should feel guilty for having missed a grain offering is beyond me, quite frankly.

As stated, you don't understand the Law whatsoever. That's the only matter in play.

If you don't think the Law proves all mankind to be sinners you are welcome to that view.

I don't believe your view is accurate to the Word.

Here, let us re-write the text for Stormcrow:

Romans 3:19
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every (ANCIENT JEWS) mouth may be stopped, and all the (ANCIENT JEW) world may become guilty before God.

The above is what your view requires.

And here, let's re-write Jesus' Words for you as well!

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man (ANCIENT JEWS ONLY) shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Does that make it better?

lol

s

 

[smaller]

Again, the Law of Moses wasn't given to "all mankind." It was given to the children of Israel. As a Gentile, why should I feel guilty for missing a Temple feast???

Do you? If not, maybe your moral compass is broken, too! :toofunny

I accept as truthful the finding that standing in a garage and yelling "I'm a Buick" makes me a Buick.

(In case that last sentence was lost on anyone, simply accepting that something is true doesn't necessarily make it so.)

Yes, you are welcome to claim that the LAW HAS NOT proven you to be a sinner.

Nice try with the utterly phony analogy though.

s

 

[Stormcrow]

To quote myself from another thread...

"Legalists sicken me."