The Victorious Christ

[jaybo]

No, because you clearly violated the ToS by misrepresenting my position.

You have clearly misrepresented my position. Do you apply the violation of the ToS to yourself as well? And your rolling eyes graphic is silly.

Again, you have avoided answering anything that shows difficulty with your position, which really is disrespectful and not honest. Yet, you want me to answer everything you ask, which I do or at least try to.

And now you post this in reply to Robert Pate: "And you're still not addressing the numerous verses I posted, all written by Paul, that are rules and commands for believers. Why haven't you addressed those?" Same old, same old. Why do you insist that discussions are conducted according to your terms only?

 

[Robert Pate]

Please show how you have determined that "Much of the New Testament was written under the Old Covenant of law and religion" while "All of Paul's epistles were written under the New Covenant of faith and Gospel." What specific criteria have you applied to come to this conclusion? When, exactly, did the Old Covenant end and the new one begin?

And you're still not addressing the numerous verses I posted, all written by Paul, that are rules and commands for believers. Why haven't you addressed those?

When Jesus died on the cross and God tore the veil that covered the Holy of Holies from the top to the bottom that signified the end of the Old Covenant, the law and the Jewish religion, Matthew 27:51. Hebrews chapters 8, 9, 10, talk about the New Covenant.

There were many unsaved people in Paul's congregation that needed to hear the law, 1 Timothy 1:9.

 

[Free]

You have clearly misrepresented my position. Do you apply the violation of the ToS to yourself as well?

No, I have not done so.

And your rolling eyes graphic is silly.

Yes, it is silly; just as silly as your continual repeating of others' statements when you have no response to the difficulties of your position when they are pointed out. The only response such a statement deserves is an eye roll.

Again, you have avoided answering anything that shows difficulty with your position, which really is disrespectful and not honest. Yet, you want me to answer everything you ask, which I do or at least try to.

And now you post this in reply to Robert Pate: "And you're still not addressing the numerous verses I posted, all written by Paul, that are rules and commands for believers. Why haven't you addressed those?" Same old, same old. Why do you insist that discussions are conducted according to your terms only?

No, not on my terms. I am insisting that discussions are done on the terms that most normal people abide by when they are actually interested in the truth. That is simply how honest and respectful discussions and debate are conducted. Ignoring counterarguments while simply repeating one's position is only done when one cannot, or simply refuses to, address counterarguments. That is why it is so dishonest and disrespectful. But, if they cannot refute counterarguments, then it is likely that their position is in error at some point, partially or completely, which just begs the question as to why they continue to hold that position.

 

[Free]

When Jesus died on the cross and God tore the veil that covered the Holy of Holies from the top to the bottom that signified the end of the Old Covenant, the law and the Jewish religion, Matthew 27:51. Hebrews chapters 8, 9, 10, talk about the New Covenant.

There were many unsaved people in Paul's congregation that needed to hear the law, 1 Timothy 1:9.

In which case, all of the NT was written under the new covenant. So, again, please show how you have determined that "Much of the New Testament was written under the Old Covenant of law and religion" while "All of Paul's epistles were written under the New Covenant of faith and Gospel." What specific criteria have you applied to come to this conclusion?

 

[Robert Pate]

In which case, all of the NT was written under the new covenant. So, again, please show how you have determined that "Much of the New Testament was written under the Old Covenant of law and religion" while "All of Paul's epistles were written under the New Covenant of faith and Gospel." What specific criteria have you applied to come to this conclusion?

All of the New Testament was not written under the New Covenant. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written under the Old Covenant. If it teaches law or commandments, it is Old Covenant. There are no laws, rules or commandments under the New Covenant, because, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to those that believe" Romans 10:4.

 

[Free]

All of the New Testament was not written under the New Covenant. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written under the Old Covenant. If it teaches law or commandments, it is Old Covenant.

But they were written well after Jesus’s resurrection and include the gospel, the new covenant.

There are no laws, rules or commandments under the New Covenant, because, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to those that believe" Romans 10:4.

You keep repeating this yet continue to ignore the numerous passages I have given which show rules and commands for that believers are to follow. What law is Paul talking about in Romans 10:4 and what does it have to do with rules and commands for believers?

 

[Robert Pate]

But they were written well after Jesus’s resurrection and include the gospel, the new covenant.


You keep repeating this yet continue to ignore the numerous passages I have given which show rules and commands for that believers are to follow. What law is Paul talking about in Romans 10:4 and what does it have to do with rules and commands for believers?

There is only one law, it is the Mosaic law.

There are no rules, laws or commandment for believers because "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness" Romans 10:4. Christians are led by the Holy Spirit, not the law. Pharisees are led by laws. The law is not for the righteous man (Christian) the law is for the lawless and disobedient, 1 Timothy 1:9.

 

[jaybo]

Galatians 4:3-7, " So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir through God."
Galatians 4:21-28, "Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by an enslaved woman and the other by a free woman. One, the child of the enslaved woman, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

“Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children,
burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs,
for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous
than the children of the one who is married.”

Now you, my brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, like Isaac."

Galatians 5:1, "For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

Anyone who puts themselves back under the written law clearly doesn't understand the New Covenant and the freedom that we have in Christ.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merry Christmas to my brothers and sisters in Christ! Rejoice in the Lord! He has given us eternal freedom!

 

[Robert Pate]

Galatians 4:3-7, " So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir through God."
Galatians 4:21-28, "Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by an enslaved woman and the other by a free woman. One, the child of the enslaved woman, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

“Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children,
burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs,
for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous
than the children of the one who is married.”

Now you, my brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, like Isaac."

Galatians 5:1, "For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

Anyone who puts themselves back under the written law clearly doesn't understand the New Covenant and the freedom that we have in Christ.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merry Christmas to my brothers and sisters in Christ! Rejoice in the Lord! He has given us eternal freedom!

Right. We are totally free from the law. To be under the law is to be under the curse, Galatians 3:10

 

[Free]

There is only one law, it is the Mosaic law.

Paul is addressing that specific law in Romans 10:4, but is there only one law? He also mentions the law of God in Romans 7:22, 25, where he also mentions the law of sin, and 1 Cor 9:21, where he also mentions the law of Christ. Additionally, and important for our discussion, is what he mentions in Romans 8:2:

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. (ESV)

Not only is that four additional laws, Paul's meaning is quite clear. Although we are not under the Mosaic law, we are under the law of the gospel, the law of grace, which still has rules and commands for the believer, so that we can live in true freedom.

Also important is what James mentions the law of liberty, which is the perfect law (James 1:25; 2:12).

Jas 1:25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. (ESV)

Jas 2:12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. (ESV)

Here is what Adam Clarke says about the law of liberty:

"The law of liberty must mean the Gospel; it is a law, for it imposes obligations from God, and prescribes a rule of life; and it punishes transgressors, and rewards the obedient. It is, nevertheless, a law that gives liberty from the guilt, power, dominion, and influence of sin; and it is perfect, providing a fullness of salvation for the soul: and it may be called perfect here, in opposition to the law, which was a system of types and representations of which the Gospel is the sum and substance."

This is what I have been trying to get the two of you to see, but you both have refused to even attempt to address the verses or questions I posted.

There are no rules, laws or commandment for believers because "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness" Romans 10:4. Christians are led by the Holy Spirit, not the law. Pharisees are led by laws. The law is not for the righteous man (Christian) the law is for the lawless and disobedient, 1 Timothy 1:9.

This is the fallacy of equivocation. You're using one meaning of law (the law of Moses) and then applying it to believers, all the while ignoring the many rules and commands clearly given for believers that fall under other NT meanings of "law."

 

[jaybo]

No Christian is under the law. Anyone who puts themselves back under the written law clearly doesn't understand the New Covenant and the freedom that we have in Christ.

 

[Free]

No Christian is under the law. Anyone who puts themselves back under the written law clearly doesn't understand the New Covenant and the freedom that we have in Christ.

Are you going to address any of my points, counterarguments, or questions? I have given much which shows that your understanding of the New Covenant is most likely not correct. I am willing to be wrong, but you need to address the things I've posted so that the discussion can progress.

And you, too, are committing the fallacy of equivocation by saying that "no christian is under the law."

 

[jaybo]

Are you going to address any of my points, counterarguments, or questions? I have given much which shows that your understanding of the New Covenant is most likely not correct. I am willing to be wrong, but you need to address the things I've posted so that the discussion can progress.

And you, too, are committing the fallacy of equivocation by saying that "no christian is under the law."

No. I am through discussing this with you.

 

[jaybo]

Taking single verses (which are additions to the text) out of context very often leads to misinterpretation and false doctrine. Here is the expanded section of Romans 8, 3-8: "For God has done what the law [singular], weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law [singular] might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law [singular]—indeed, it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Clearly Paul is addressing the written OT law. To extract a single phrase from a single verse -- For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death -- to prove doctrine is eisegesis.

 

[Free]

Taking single verses (which are additions to the text) out of context very often leads to misinterpretation and false doctrine. Here is the expanded section of Romans 8, 3-8: "For God has done what the law [singular], weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law [singular] might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law [singular]—indeed, it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Clearly Paul is addressing the written OT law. To extract a single phrase from a single verse -- For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death -- to prove doctrine is eisegesis.

You’ve given additional context, which is good, but you haven’t shown how any eisegesis was done, since you haven’t shown how verse 2 relates to the rest of what you have given.

Here are verses 1 and 2:

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. (ESV)

Paul is clearly contrasting “the law of the Spirit of life” with the OT “law of sin and death,” which he then expands on in the rest of the verses you provided. Which was my point—that there is more than one law mentioned in the NT, and ones that believers are under. The law of the Spirit of life brings freedom in Christ, which is not something the OT law can do, and that is Paul’s point.

 

[jaybo]

2 Corinthians 4:5-6, "Not that we are qualified of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our qualification is from God, who has made us qualified to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." "The letter" here clearly refers to the written law.

A Christian is guided by either of two things: the written law or the Holy Spirit.

Romans 7:4-6, "In the same way, my brothers and sisters, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are enslaved in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the written code."

You can't be guided by the written, external, code and the internal Holy Spirit. It's either or; it can't be both.

 

[Free]

2 Corinthians 4:5-6, "Not that we are qualified of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our qualification is from God, who has made us qualified to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." "The letter" here clearly refers to the written law.

A Christian is guided by either of two things: the written law or the Holy Spirit.

Romans 7:4-6, "In the same way, my brothers and sisters, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are enslaved in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the written code."

You can't be guided by the written, external, code and the internal Holy Spirit. It's either or; it can't be both.

But now you are repeating the fallacies of equivocation and false dichotomy. You are applying what Paul means by OT law to what he says about the laws for believers.

The whole reason I asked you the two questions, which you have yet to answer, was to point out the problems with your position. Either the Holy Spirit inspired Paul, and the other NT writers, to write numerous rules and commands for believers to follow, being under the law of God, the law of the Spirit of life, or he didn’t inspire those things. Either the Holy Spirit guides us by means of the entire written NT or he doesn’t.

 

[jaybo]

But now you are repeating the fallacies of equivocation and false dichotomy. You are applying what Paul means by OT law to what he says about the laws for believers.

The whole reason I asked you the two questions, which you have yet to answer, was to point out the problems with your position. Either the Holy Spirit inspired Paul, and the other NT writers, to write numerous rules and commands for believers to follow, being under the law of God, the law of the Spirit of life, or he didn’t inspire those things. Either the Holy Spirit guides us by means of the entire written NT or he doesn’t.

I do not have to answer your questions.

 

[Robert Pate]

Paul is addressing that specific law in Romans 10:4, but is there only one law? He also mentions the law of God in Romans 7:22, 25, where he also mentions the law of sin, and 1 Cor 9:21, where he also mentions the law of Christ. Additionally, and important for our discussion, is what he mentions in Romans 8:2:

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. (ESV)

Not only is that four additional laws, Paul's meaning is quite clear. Although we are not under the Mosaic law, we are under the law of the gospel, the law of grace, which still has rules and commands for the believer, so that we can live in true freedom.

Also important is what James mentions the law of liberty, which is the perfect law (James 1:25; 2:12).

Jas 1:25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. (ESV)

Jas 2:12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. (ESV)

Here is what Adam Clarke says about the law of liberty:

"The law of liberty must mean the Gospel; it is a law, for it imposes obligations from God, and prescribes a rule of life; and it punishes transgressors, and rewards the obedient. It is, nevertheless, a law that gives liberty from the guilt, power, dominion, and influence of sin; and it is perfect, providing a fullness of salvation for the soul: and it may be called perfect here, in opposition to the law, which was a system of types and representations of which the Gospel is the sum and substance."

This is what I have been trying to get the two of you to see, but you both have refused to even attempt to address the verses or questions I posted.


This is the fallacy of equivocation. You're using one meaning of law (the law of Moses) and then applying it to believers, all the while ignoring the many rules and commands clearly given for believers that fall under other NT meanings of "law."

To be under the law is to be under a curse, Galatians 3:10. I hope that you enjoy your curse.

 

[Free]

It is very telling that both of you refuse to address the passages I posted, the questions I’ve asked, and my counterarguments, and choose instead to just keep repeating the same arguments. Changing one’s strong-held beliefs is one of the hardest things to do, so people tend to ignore all evidence to the contrary.