When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[Jethro Bodine]

It might be better to START from the Gospels and go from there, rather than from Paul and work backwards...

I don't agree with this because as atheists will tell you, the gospels don't have a lot to say about faith in regard to salvation, but which we know and agree on is the essential ingredient of salvation. They see this as proof of the contradiction in scripture that strips it of it's divine authority.

Personally, I only understand the salvation I have received by grace because of Paul, not the gospels. Paul fills in the details that the gospels lack. But I'm more than aware of how the general misunderstanding of 'righteousness apart from works' is used to reinterpret what Jesus taught. The problem lies in properly discerning what Paul taught, not elevating some parts of scripture above another, whether that be the gospels above the Pauline letters, or Paul's letters above the gospels. After much study I see them entirely consistent and complimentary with one another. Completely.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Without the wisdom and insights found in Paul's writings, The Church today would be totally confused.

I agree with this 100%.

It didn't take long for me to see that was Paul's purpose, to use his education, and profound teaching gift, and understanding of the scriptures to provide the theology and practical details of what it means to follow Christ. The problem is we seemed to have become uneducated in what we once knew about the insight and wisdom he taught. That error has become an indoctrination that is not easily overcome.

 

[Mitspa]

Paul's reference to "my Gospel" is more of an affirmation that "his Gospel" is correct, since we see him use the term "a different Gospel" or "a different Jesus" we know that he fought fiercely against those who would pervert the Gospel, by adding the elements of the Law of Moses to the pure Gospel.

Paul is uniquely qualified to expound upon these things as a lawyer of The Law of Moses over that of his fellow Apostles, in that there were not as educated in the Law as he was.

The Holy Spirit obviously used Paul's writings more than the others to form what we call The New Testament.

If you add the book of Hebrews to that equation, then it is seriously lopsided.

Without the wisdom and insights found in Paul's writings, The Church today would be totally confused.

Remember this, Paul's writings, as the Prophets were inspired by The Spirit of Christ -

10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made... Galatians 3:19

Jesus finished teaching us through Paul.

as it is written -

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. John 16:12

Thank God.


JLB

One should also consider that it is the Holy Spirit that speaks in the Word. It is not the man Paul who writes these things. But it is the Holy Spirit that inspires his letters. And the clear warning to all, is that by Pauls gospel ALL MEN WILL BE JUDGED.
We see Pauls authority in his correction of Peter and James. We see the book of Acts confirms that the Gospel was made known through Paul. No one can get away from the clear warnings against those who attempt to teach doctrine contrary to Pauls doctrines of grace. I accept no man who teaches another gospel, nor should anyone else.

 

[Mitspa]

you see it is only through Pauls teachings that one understands that the strength of sin is the law. That the free gift of righteousness and abounding grace are the only power over sin. That when we walk in the spirit free from condemnation we will "sin no more"
"For sin will not hove dominion over you because you are not under law but under grace"

So when the Lord told the woman caught in adultry "I do not condemn you, go and sin no more" This is only understood when Pauls gospel is understood.
Those who think they can understand the 4 gospels apart from Pauls epistles are just in error.

 

[francisdesales]

It might be better to START from the Gospels and go from there, rather than from Paul and work backwards...

I don't agree with this because as atheists will tell you, the gospels don't have a lot to say about faith in regard to salvation

I haven't heard atheists say this! I have heard certain of my separated brothers make this claim, but I don't agree. Jesus says plenty about how one is found favorable to God. The Sermon on the Mount is a good place to go to find it in a compact area.

but which we know and agree on is the essential ingredient of salvation. They see this as proof of the contradiction in scripture that strips it of it's divine authority.

I don't see disagreement between the Gospels and Paul, UNLESS one begins with the idea that Paul believed that one is saved by faith alone. Interpretations certainly disagree, but the Scriptures themselves do not give us contradicting means of being just. Faith working in love. Obedience to God according to what we know. The inner heart seeking out God is pleasing to Him, rather than mere external works (of the Law). I think some people view the Gospels through the eyes of "justified by faith alone" and presume that Jesus and Paul would disagree, leading to a confusion.

Personally, I only understand the salvation I have received by grace because of Paul, not the gospels. Paul fills in the details that the gospels lack. But I'm more than aware of how the general misunderstanding of 'righteousness apart from works' is used to reinterpret what Jesus taught. The problem lies in properly discerning what Paul taught, not elevating some parts of scripture above another, whether that be the gospels above the Pauline letters, or Paul's letters above the gospels. After much study I see them entirely consistent and complimentary with one another. Completely.

I don't think we can go wrong by focusing on Christ. Does Paul fill in gaps? Sure, from a theologically complete standpoint, Jesus doesn't address certain issues on a grand scale, such as Judaizers' desire to turn the Gentiles into cultural Jews. But how are we saved - have eternal life? It is clear enough, I believe. Seek out God and obey Him. Do not perform "works" to be seen, like the hypocrites do (your righteousness apart from the works of the law argument...) Etc. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Paul and his style, but I think the Gospels are clear enough in presenting Christian teachings and don't need to be "re-interpreted" through the lenses of Paul (while some would ignore James and John and Peter...)

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

you see it is only through Pauls teachings that one understands that the strength of sin is the law. That the free gift of righteousness and abounding grace are the only power over sin. That when we walk in the spirit free from condemnation we will "sin no more"
"For sin will not hove dominion over you because you are not under law but under grace"

So when the Lord told the woman caught in adultry "I do not condemn you, go and sin no more" This is only understood when Pauls gospel is understood.
Those who think they can understand the 4 gospels apart from Pauls epistles are just in error.

According to you... Where do we find this "canon within a canon" in Scriptures?

Your understanding of Paul is in error because you don't understand Christ and His teachings. I posit that Paul follows the teachings of Christ, not the other way around.

God nor the Law expects utter sinless perfection. That is the source of your error on "go and sin no more". It is a challenge to change one's life. Repent.

Proof?

OTHER parts of the Bible that are not Pauline declare that anyone who thinks that they are sinless are liars.

Do you believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God?

If yes, then neither Christ NOR PAUL could have believed that one would understand "go and sin no more" as a demand or an expectation to become utterly sinless.

 

[Webb]

Paul got his gospel from Christ, Gal.1:11,12

 

[francisdesales]

One should also consider that it is the Holy Spirit that speaks in the Word. It is not the man Paul who writes these things. But it is the Holy Spirit that inspires his letters. And the clear warning to all, is that by Pauls gospel ALL MEN WILL BE JUDGED.

Don't you see that you give with one hand, and take it away with the other???

First four sentences you offer. Correct. Agreeable. Truth. Mitspa got it right...

Last sentence. It now becomes "Paul's" Gospel... Oh boy...

Rather than all of those very agreeable words regarding PAUL NOT WRITING THEM and the Gospel being FROM God - the last sentence ruins it by changing it back to Paul's gospel...

It is Paul's Gospel only in the sense that it is APOSTOLIC TEACHING - given by God to Him and the rest of the Apostles. versus OTHER teachings (in context, upholding the Mosaic Law in addition to the Law of Grace)

We see Pauls authority in his correction of Peter and James.

Paul had no authority to correct either one of them - as we see in Acts - over doctrinal matters. Paul went to THEM to ensure that the Gospel received was in line with theirs - and it was. In other words, THE GOSPEL RECEIVED by Peter and James ALREADY EXISTED. It was not "Paul's Gospel" that was given to Peter and James!!!

Paul corrected Peter and James over their treatment of the Gentile Christians viz a viz the Jewish Christians. Scandalous behaviour needs to be corrected.

We see the book of Acts confirms that the Gospel was made known through Paul.

Afraid not. The Gospel was preached before Paul received his knowledge. Furthermore, Acts states that Paul went to others to LEARN the Gospel... The Gospel came from Christ, not Paul, as you mention in your first few sentences. Paul preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, but he certainly was not preaching an independent gospel from the others, nor did Paul invent something different. It is Christ's Gospel that was preached, BY Paul, Peter, James, John, etc...

 

[francisdesales]

Paul got his gospel from Christ, Gal.1:11,12

Yes, in some cases, directly by revelation. In other cases, through intermediaries, such as Ananias and other apostles/teachers. It was certainly a combination.

When Paul says he received the Gospel from Christ, this is opposed to gospels invented by men or received from angels. The Gospel begins with Christ and was given to the Apostles (last line of Matthew). From them, it spread to other teachers -and to Paul. The source is Christ. Peter says the same thing, 'we didn't just contrive these myths'. They are not from men. Nor are they from angels, who gave Moses the Decalogue. They are directly from God.

Regards

 

[JLB]

What Jesus taught us is the foundation that's Paul's letters are built upon.

Jesus "continued" to teach us through Paul.

It was the Spirit of Christ in the prophets as it was the Spirit of Christ in Paul.

As Paul said - ... Since you seek proof of Christ speaking in me. 2 Corinthians 13:3

Those that have a problem with what Paul wrote, actually have a problem with The Lord Jesus Christ.

For it is written -

10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11

The Spirit of Christ was in the OT prophets as He was in Paul.


JLB

 

[About the Son of God]

Mitspa,
I don't condone a return to the Law of Moses. I think you are getting the wrong idea.

...
The fact that something is written in the Old Testament and that Old is a witness to the New does not mean that we are under the old.

I agree that we are not under the entire O.T. Law.

Thats like saying that Mexico has a law like the USA, so therefore we are under Mexican law?

That's only half true...
If President Obama says "we will have men with automatic machine guns in every bank, because the Mexican Law says so"; then -- it's a slam dunk that he's putting us under "a" Mexican Law by his very words; and many people would rise up against him and say, We don't obey Mexican Law.

Paul does exactly that "so says the Law" and not one person says anything to him.
My point is that either "the Law" isn't the same as "the Law" in Romans, or else the law is not entirely gone.

Also Paul explains his reasons for the limits he puts upon women. Thses limits are lifted under certain conditions.
To take a random scripture where the law is used as a witness to a point and then attempt to overturn the whole counsel of grace is just great error! This is not an honest attempt to find the truth, but a attempt to confuse the truth.

Your response sounds confused, it's as if you think I am attempting a "random" scripture, and attempting to overturn the counsel of grace????

I repeat "I don't condone a return to the Mosaic Law."

But I don't agree with your apologetic logic, even though I agree with your conclusion:

I disagree because the law Paul applies is not a mere witness from the old testament as you say, it's an actual law people are to OBEY in his church, in the new testament. The length or number of exceptions to the rule is irrelevant. If this rule applies to even one person, at one time, in the New Covenant under Grace -- then the O.T. law had not completely passed away during the time of Romans.

Could you explain why this law (above) remains, and which others laws "can" remain -- and which "cant" -- and give me an explanation as to *why* ?

Paul makes no easily identified distinction between one class of statute of the Law and another -- but calls everything "law" though evidently, some have passed away and others have not.

 

[About the Son of God]

Well my friend, Luke did not share the gospel with Paul! Gal 1:11 Paul was shown Christ through the the Spirit, even he was taken unto the third heaven. Now THE GOSPEL is what Paul taught, without Paul the 4 "gospels" are hidden from those who are under law. Now the essence of the Gospel is this "THE LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN CHRIST JESUS HAS SET ME FREE FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH. The law of moses can never make a charge of sin against me.For I am justified freely by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. For a man who does not know this? Is a man who has nothing to teach me or others.

True: Moses will not make a charge against you -- but Paul could... but only if you break "his" law or teach another to do it (mistakenly or not) in his jurisdiction.

I think you're sort of fixated on Paul to the point that you're overlooking the obvious (or not telling us about it, at least).

Paul was not an apostle from the start; He was not an apostle immediately after Jesus dies; (and for some time following that!) Paul hadn't even begun killing Christians, let alone being converted to Christ, at the point of Luke's narrative where:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
....
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Paul's nowhere to be seen, he has not *even* been named Paul yet; and yet CLEARLY the Gospel of Jesus THE Christ is clearly "SEEN" by three thousand JEWS.... WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW. They then were baptized and became Christians!

After the time of Acts 2:41 -- many of the people mentioned, would halve left Jerusalem and never come back before they died of natural causes. (Pregnant women often died in childbirth, without antibiotics many young teenaged children died, theft, war, etc.) But, my point is -- a very large number of them would never have heard Paul's doctrine before death.

So, It's pretty clear -- historically -- that your thinking either mistakenly damns the Hebrew converts who came before Paul, or else you agree that this "seeing" the gospel, as you call it, has nothing to do with actually being saved.

Paul is a judge of anyone who is in his churches.
If you are saved through Paul's teaching -- Amen! Peace to you. I am happy for you.

I'm born from above (Note: John 3:3 has ανωθεν as does John 3:31 again=above ), by the Spirit which Jesus Christ gave me!

And this is the same Spirit by which I say "Jesus Christ is LORD." and "He is Risen as he said"; Halleluia! Amen! I believe this with my whole heart.

(All of which I learned from The Gospel according to Mark, and to John before I ever read Paul epistles for the first time.)

 

[francisdesales]

What Jesus taught us is the foundation that's Paul's letters are built upon.

Jesus "continued" to teach us through Paul.

It was the Spirit of Christ in the prophets as it was the Spirit of Christ in Paul.

As Paul said - ... Since you seek proof of Christ speaking in me. 2 Corinthians 13:3

Those that have a problem with what Paul wrote, actually have a problem with The Lord Jesus Christ.

For it is written -

10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11

The Spirit of Christ was in the OT prophets as He was in Paul.


JLB

Better. Thanks for the clarification.

Regards

 

[About the Son of God]

Although...
Kanon? Greek for list?...

What I mean is what you correctly discern in a different post, that Paul is not above anyone else. Sorry about not making that more clear.

I was being a bit thick, wasn't I....
Talk about overshooting the mark.... Oh well, it put some wear on my keyboard; but I'm sure it's still good for another 100 million clicks or so...

This is the sort of statement I am talking about that was just recently made (as in not uncommon among certain people):

"..all doctrine must be judged by Pauls epistles. "

Where is THIS in the Scriptures??? Where does Paul makes this statement? ...
I find this sort of comment a "canon within a canon".
As if the entire Gospel is built around being justified by faith apart from the Mosaic Law.

So I've noticed.... on the other hand, the particular way you made your assertion using a quote of mine, obviously transmitted like an infection to somebody else's un-discerning eye. I'm just not the kind of person that delights in making comments that are already hated.... I like to at least make people think before regurgitating a response that helps neither them nor me.

Funny, Jesus teaches for three years and never mentions that...

True, but that's a double hinged piece observation; for, the assertion of our interlocutor is that Paul received his Gospel directly, and that it is detectable in Paul's writings; which necessarily implies that Paul has everything everyone else said -- and more.

That's one reason I quoted 1John5:16 , for that is something Paul doesn't have either, anywhere, and it's not directly stated in Luke, etc. These special teachings are reflections which one *might* come to the conclusion of based on reading the Gospels, and O.T. -- but they are things that an Apostle, stating them directly, can confirm beyond all doubt as more than an opinion.

That is the attitude that I find disconcerting - and leads to error. People ignore Jesus because He upsets the view of Paul that some have.

I'll get to the rest of your post soon.

Regards

I respect your position.



And that's exactly where apologetics has to step in to resolve differences (perceived or actual) between the two sources.

 

[francisdesales]

Well my friend, Luke did not share the gospel with Paul! Gal 1:11 Paul was shown Christ through the the Spirit, even he was taken unto the third heaven. Now THE GOSPEL is what Paul taught, without Paul the 4 "gospels" are hidden from those who are under law. Now the essence of the Gospel is this "THE LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN CHRIST JESUS HAS SET ME FREE FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH. The law of moses can never make a charge of sin against me.For I am justified freely by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. For a man who does not know this? Is a man who has nothing to teach me or others.

True: Moses will not make a charge against you -- but Paul could... but only if you break "his" law or teach another to do it (mistakenly or not) in his jurisdiction.

I think you're sort of fixated on Paul to the point that you're overlooking the obvious (or not telling us about it, at least).

Paul was not an apostle from the start; He was not an apostle immediately after Jesus dies; (and for some time following that!) Paul hadn't even begun killing Christians, let alone being converted to Christ, at the point of Luke's narrative where:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
....
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Paul's nowhere to be seen, he has not *even* been named Paul yet; and yet CLEARLY the Gospel of Jesus THE Christ is clearly "SEEN" by three thousand JEWS.... WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW. They then were baptized and became Christians!

After the time of Acts 2:41 -- many of the people mentioned, would halve left Jerusalem and never come back before they died of natural causes. (Pregnant women often died in childbirth, without antibiotics many young teenaged children died, theft, war, etc.) But, my point is -- a very large number of them would never have heard Paul's doctrine before death.

So, It's pretty clear -- historically -- that your thinking either mistakenly damns the Hebrew converts who came before Paul, or else you agree that this "seeing" the gospel, as you call it, has nothing to do with actually being saved.

Paul is a judge of anyone who is in his churches.
If you are saved through Paul's teaching -- Amen! Peace to you. I am happy for you.

I'm born from above (Note: John 3:3 has ανωθεν as does John 3:31 again=above ), by the Spirit which Jesus Christ gave me!

And this is the same Spirit by which I say "Jesus Christ is LORD." and "He is Risen as he said"; Halleluia! Amen! I believe this with my whole heart.

(All of which I learned from The Gospel according to Mark, and to John before I ever read Paul epistles for the first time.)

Indeed. Claiming that the Gospel came from Paul to the apostles is a total disregard for historical reality. The first half of Acts hardly even mentions Paul. It is about Peter and the first Christians spreading the word of God. It is Peter who first recognizes that parts of the Mosaic Law is passing away with the meeting with Cornelius. Not Paul. It is Peter and James who call the council of Jerusalem and make their determination - of which Paul was happy to hear.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

the particular way you made your assertion using a quote of mine, obviously transmitted like an infection to somebody else's un-discerning eye. I'm just not the kind of person that delights in making comments that are already hated.... I like to at least make people think before regurgitating a response that helps neither them nor me.

Actually, I was citing Mitspa, who had said that the immediately preceding post before mine. I was citing him as evidence that some actually believe the idea of a "canon in a canon", a supposed super-list of writings that supercede the rest of the ordinary canon... It was just making a point, sorry if you found my regurgitating offensive.

Funny, Jesus teaches for three years and never mentions that...

True, but that's a double hinged piece observation; for, the assertion of our interlocutor is that Paul received his Gospel directly; which would, necessarily, imply that it has differences belonging to Paul alone.
That's one reason I quoted 1John5:16 , for that is something Paul doesn't have either, anywhere, and it's not directly stated in Luke, either. These are teachings which one *might* come to the conclusion of based on reading the Gospels -- but they are things that only an Apostle, stating them directly in scripture, can confirm beyond all doubt.

Ah, I see, I didn't catch the 1 John citation. My point here is that the supposed pillar of sola fide is hardly mentioned by Jesus. I posit that "faith apart from the Mosaic Law" is a particularly Pauline (but certainly not unique -see Acts 15) observation based upon his audience and his own background. It is key to Paul because of his audience, not because it is of primary concern to the Gospel as a whole entirety. Entering eternal life, according to Christ, is not utterly dependent upon the understanding of "faith apart from the Mosaic Law". However, Jesus does clearly speak about hypocritical seeking of God and legalism, following in the footsteps of the prophets who have God desiring mercy, rather than bloody sacrifices. I would think Paul would agree with that notion, but Paul goes beyond that. Of course, there was no problem in the time of Jesus' humanity of people going from Christianity back to Judaism to become justified in God's eyes. That is a particular issue in the time of Paul, and it is not as important in the later books of the Bible, such as John's epistles and Jude.

Regards

 

[Sparkey]

which necessarily implies that Paul has everything everyone else said -- and more.

You're certain that Paul was omniscient? Or did I fail to read you right?

 

[About the Son of God]

ou're certain that Paul was omniscient? Or did I fail to read you right?

:rolling

I think I got up on the wrong side of the bed....
It's the latter Sparrowhawke, definitely the latter.....
I was commenting on an "interlocutor" 's claims who began the thread late.

I think I'll just give up for a while --- while I'm still behind....

 

[Sparkey]

It must be me and it's not the first time today, pardon, but I too will rest...

 

[jasoncran]

I agree. but when I mention the torah in the torah, theres grace.

Absolutely. (Cities of refuge is a good example.)

But the measure of grace the law does provide is not sufficient to save.

it saved . but noah.saying that the saints weren't forgiven is really bit much. if you think about it. only those that were in paradise in sheol believed the messiah. when He went to sheol he revealed him self and when he rose he took them to heaven as that wasn't open to the saints then. of course how long they were there is debatable since moses and Elijah were able to leave sheol.

that is another topic.