Being saved and the 10 commandments

[Chowmah]

Paul's epistles in particular were written to Gentiles, thus they are too us and about us.
Brother Joe

1 COR. 7 [19] Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Yup. From the writings of Paul

 

[Yeshua1]

1 COR. 7 [19] Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Yup. From the writings of Paul

And the same person stated to us that the law can save none of us, as we cannot keep it well enough. and so under the new covenant its Grace alone/faith alone are we saved!

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Every reference to scripture in the NT is a reference to the OT.

In 2 Peter 3 the term "scripture" refers to the OT.

In 2Tim 3 the "All scripture" is a reference to the OT as we see in the text itself .

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The scriptures that Timothy had as a child did not include one single NT letter because he did not even become a Christian until he was an adult --

The point is not that the NT text is not also scripture - the point is that the NT writers were doing the opposite of what some suggest today - instead of ignoring the OT (and also the Gospel teaching of Christ in the case of some) as if it is not valid scripture for NT saints - it is the ONLY thing they quote in the NT saying it is "scripture".

A more directly contradicting practice could hardly be imagined against the one that supposes that Christians only have 24 books of scripture that applies to Christians.

Responding to my argument that some Christians are downsizing the Bible to 27 or 23 for "Christians" and ignoring the rest

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell C

A false argument no-one has made but you.

I believe we have 66 books.

I believe that we have to consider All Scripture.

And that all Scripture is both Testaments, and that the New Testament is the revelation we must come to understand in light of the Old Testament, which was foundational, limited, and maintained the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, hidden from the world until the appropriate time, which issue I dealt with in detail in the other thread (think it was the other thread, lol).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK

Isaiah 56 is just that--Isaiah 56. It is not the NT. And since SDA prophecy is miles apart from mine I refuse to discuss it with you. You must find the command to keep the Sabbath in the NT. Isaiah was written to Israel.

All of Isaiah was written to Israel, as was Exodus. One doesn't find NT believers in the OT.

There is no command to keep the Sabbath for the NT believer. You won't find such a command in the NT.

========================================

Please explain how I am the one downsizing Scripture, Bob.

I don't expect an address of the points made, but at least explain that to me.


God bless.

In the post you are responding to - I gave as my example DHK arguing against the idea of NT Christians listening to scripture that is not NT.

You did something like that in your own post about the OT be the OT economy and not the New Covenant -- ie. possibly the OT is legalism even to the point of the teaching of Christ? I have provided that exchange below.

IF I am mistaken then what was the "other option" in your post for why we should not take the teaching of Christ in Mark 7 as fully applicable to New Covenant Jer 31:31-33 Christians?

Here is that exchange again.,

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Some may be tempted to think of Christ as a "legalist" when they read Mark 7 because it sounds so much like the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 - but Christ is not preaching salvation by Works --

[FONT=&quot]Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said”

In the case above the legalists ar[FONT=&quot]e "making stuff up" about [FONT=&quot]what you eat and drink with the washing (Baptizing) of cups and pots [FONT=&quot]to remove supposed-sin from them.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

The Law accomplishes condemnation for the lost.

[FONT=&quot]But for the sa[FONT=&quot]ved - it i[FONT=&quot]s written on the mind and heart. The very part of the New Covenant most reje[FONT=&quot]cted by some and accepted by others.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]

Sorry, but that does not sound like the New Covenant, and could not be because it was still an Old Testament Economy Christ was under:


Galatians 4:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


We also see that here:


Luke 16:27-31

King James Version (KJV)

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Consider why Abraham does not say "They can hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ?"

Because it was not revealed in that Age.

Christ redeemed men from the Law, not into a better version of it.

That is why it is called the New Covenant.


God bless.

I "prefer" to think you would agree with what BrotherJoseph just said about having 66 books for Christians etc - but can't be sure.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
My argument is not that the NT is not scripture -- my argument is that every time that term is used in the NT it is a reference to the OT which is NOT 'expected' by the made-up-rule that NT saints should never read the OT as if it were scripture for NT saints.

How fully "debunked" that idea is by the actual example of the NT writers not once saying "the scripture of Paul says" or "the scripture of John says" or "in the scripture we find - all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" quoting NT text prefixed by "scripture" as is always done in the NT for the OT.

Again - I am not arguing against the NT being scripture - my argument is that we do not find any support for ignoring the OT as scripture - binding and authoritative for the NT saints given that ALL reference to scripture in the NT is for the OT.

The "practice" I am challenging is the one that rejects the example we have from NT writers of upholding the OT as the "scripture" binding and authoritative for NT saints.

Brother Bob,

I trust you were blessed by your service this morning. I thank you for your reply. I am a bit long winded, but hope you bear with me and read my post. This is a very important subject we are discussing.

I agree with you that a child of God should read both the New Testament and the Old Testament as Paul tells us, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Timothy 3:16). (I do not know any Baptists that say we should not read the Old Testament, but I suppose there may be a few).

I also think we would agree that if someone is truly a child of God they will have evidence of this by obeying the commandments (though we differ on our belief of if the Sabbath is for the New Testament church). Jesus points out obeying the commandment is evidence of a child of God when he declares, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me" (John 14:21) I think we would also agree that keeping the commandments does not bring one eternal life, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20).

I agree with that -- except for any change downsize/edit of the "Commandments of God" - and that includes not downsizing the Ten Commandments --not even by man-made traidtion.

In other words, one of the purposes of the law for an elect child of God is to act as a prosecutor to show them their sin so we recognize the need why Christ died for them and have faith in Him.

That is how the Law applies to the lost.

However, we must also recognize we are not under the old Covenant, but the new Covenant, "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Hebrews 8:8) and also, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away".

The "old Covenant" that is talked about in Heb 8 and in Gal 3 is of the form "Obey and Live" -- in its purest form it is the covenant with Adam and Eve.

As long as they remained perfect... sinless they were fine - but one sin and presto! They are the parents of fallen mankind and all have sinful natures as described in Romans 3. 'None seeks after God - no not one... none righteous".

So when you see in Gen 5 and Gen 6 and Heb 11 - these righteous, perfect "pleasing to God" - sinners pursuing "Righteousness which is by faith" Heb 11 - you know they had the Gospel benefit applied to them. It is simply not possible to do what they did as a lost person.

Much that is in the Old Testament such as the ceremonial laws, animal sacrifice, circumcision were merely signs and shadows pointing to Christ's sacrifice and thus are no longer applicable to the New Testament church.

That is true and so would the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and "Westminster Confession of Faith" agree with that division.

That is why Paul asks the Galatians who were relying on their flesh, rather than His Spirit working in them through grace to produce sanctification, "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" Galatians 4:21 and Galatians 3:3, "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?". They were relying on their own flesh to keep the law, not God's spirit in them.

Because they had chosen to follow the man-made commandments-of-men made-up-stuff of certain false teachers. For example in Acts 15:1 these false teachers invented the rule that "Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved" -- but check out Is 56 -- no such rule was ever approved of in scripture for Gentiles - they simply "made it up".

Paul argues that the rules they are making up are "another gospel" they are righeousness-by-works where the works are nothing more than "The Commandments of men".

Notice in Gal 2 Paul does NOT condemn them for "Honoring your Father and Mother" as IF to keep that law would earn salvation. Never does any NT writer condemn it - saying that people are honoring their parents thinking this would earn their way to heaven.

(As a simple example)

The Old Testament was given to the Israelites, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2), but they are types and shadows.The book of Joshua makes it clear that the old covenant was a system of blessings and cursings that would come upon Israel conditioned on if they obeyed the law.

You have switched seamlessly between "old covenant" and "Old Testament".

In "our world" -- Old Testament means "39 books of scripture" that is not what the NT saints were talking about - neither. They refer to those 39 simply as "scripture". And they never argue "scripture is just for the Jews".

"And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law." (Joshua 8:34)

National Israel never received a single blessing as the result of their obedience to this conditional covenant, for they did not keep it, and if it had been replete with heavenly treasures and blessings to have been dispensed upon condition of their obedience, they would never have obtained one of them, for it is written, “They continued not in My covenant and I regarded them not, saith the Lord” (Hebrews 8:9).

We are not under the old covenant, but under the new covenant. "6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." (Hebrews 8:6). Why is this covenant better?

More correctly - all the lost are still under the old covenant -- all the saved are under the New Covenant - - because the New Covenant IS the Gospel!

It is the ONE Gospel according to Gal 1:6-9

And it was preached to Abraham - Gal 3:7.

The reason the New Covenant is better is that it provides for forgiveness of sins and adoption as the children of God-- and the new birth.

It is the ONE Gospel and all the lost today are today under the Old Covenant of "obey and live" -- and thus they are condemned.

this would only motivate a person to obey from a fleshly perspective in order to get, grace and unconditional on the other hand is a much more effective motivator than the law and fear of punishment ever could be!

unconditional salvation is the ultimate demonstration of bias, unrighteousness and partiality unless all of mankind is saved -- universalism.

What we see is conditional salvation in scripture.

"To as many as received Him - to THEM He gave the right to be called the children of God" John 1.

"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11

"God is not partial" Romans 2:11

Blessings to you brother.

To be continued...

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

for BrotherJoseph before I get to the next part of the response.

Some may be tempted to think of Christ as a "legalist" when they read Mark 7 because it sounds so much like the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 - but Christ is not preaching salvation by Works --

[FONT=&quot]Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said”

The Law accomplishes condemnation for the lost.

[FONT=&quot]But for the sa[FONT=&quot]ved - it i[FONT=&quot]s written on the mind and heart. The very part of the New Covenant most reje[FONT=&quot]cted by some and accepted by others.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

For the New Testament church, we are not under law (the ten Commandments), but under grace. "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace", however because of this grace we are under it motivates a true child of God to obey the law, not break it, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Romans 3:31) and "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6:1-2) Grace is a motive to serve, not a license to sin for a true child of God.

Then what -- according to the NT - is sin?

1 John 3:4 "Sin IS transgression of the LAW'

Romans 7 the LAW defines what sin is -- and then Paul quotes from the Ten Commandments.

Romans 3:19-22 'For through the Law comes the knowledge of sin"

What law?

2Cor 3 - the Law "written on tablets of stone".

That is the Law that defines sin - and condemns all mankind to death - the second death.

As even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" points out - (and so also the other confessions) -- it is the moral law of God - the Ten Commandments.

Those who admit to the Sabbath-iinclusive TEN Commandments as the moral law of God include Chuck Swindoll, Andy Stanley, C.H. Spurgeon, the various Confessions of Faith, Matthew Henry and many others.

Romans 6 argues that we cannot transgress God's Law as if that is the permission we got from "Being under grace". Romans 6 says you are slaves of the one you obey either of SIN (transgression of the Law) resulting in death or of righteousness"

We should study the Old Testament, but realize most of it (though not all) was not written to us and about us

That is where you err - you seamlessly switch from Old Covenant to what we today call "Old Testament" And what the NT writers call "Scripture".

That is a flaw.

Not one NT writers says what you just said about "Scripture" - and I think we both know it.

"We should study the scriptures but realize most of it (though not all) was not written to us and about us"

They all use the term to refer to what WE Call the "Old Testament" and yet None of them say what you just said about them.

It is because you seamlessly switched between the term "Old Testament" and "Old Covenant" as THEY would have used it --- to the term "Old Testament" as WE would redefined it today to mean the 39 books of scripture.

Without that logical fallacy equivocating between "scripture" and "Old Testament" - "Old Covenant" your argument would not work.

Consider that point prayerfully - because your model flies in the face of 2Tim 3:16 and Mark 7:6-13.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Also for BrotherJoesph to consider the Gospel benefits in the OT.

"The Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM also" Heb 4:2.

"They all drank from the same Spiritual Rock and that ROCK was CHRIST" 1cor 10:1-4.

I do not follow the logic that says that IF God be not limited by time as a man then anything that happens in time does not matter.

The Bible makes the opposite point to that in Romans 4.

And Romans 4 is not before the cross.

The fact that God is not being limited by time does nothing to decrease Christ.

IF no Gospel promise was there in the OT then they had "NOT the Gospel" -- not 'The SAME Gospel" but rather NO Gospel.

If you imagine some way for OT saints to be saved and other OT people to be lost - without OUR Gospel -then you have imagined "another gospel" -- by definition. No way around it.

PRIOR to the NT cross - Christ said "THIS GOSPEL of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world and THEN shall the end come". What "Gospel" did they have before the cross when in your model - even the disciples were not saved??

No text says that the OT saints were lost.

No text says the OT saints did not have righteousness by Faith, full acceptance with God, and the pure Gospel that we have.

Rather the NT texts directly refute such speculation.

All of our doctrines must stand "sola scriptura" and that means we cannot chop off 43 books of our 66 books of scripture any more than NT saints were allowed to do that in Acts 17:11.

It simply is not "sola scriptura" testing to downsize the Bible or to argue that it does not honor Christ to admit to His claims to be Savior even in the OT and to His claim of being "the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the World".



in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darrell C]

Also for BrotherJoesph to consider the Gospel benefits in the OT.

"The Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM also" Heb 4:2.

"They all drank from the same Spiritual Rock and that ROCK was CHRIST" 1cor 10:1-4.

New theme, Bob?


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

New theme, Bob?


God bless.

I thought it was the same-ol' same-ol' from me. What is different??

There is a question for you here - #83 that I would appreciate getting your opinion of -

Blessings --

 

[BobRyan]

My earlier example of Gospel benefits seen in the OT - specifically - BEFORE the Cross.

Christ as eternal God was glorified from all eternity past.

In John 17 Christ said that He was returning to the Father to the glory that he HAD with the Father before His birth.

So the text in Matt 17 is correct - Moses and Elijah are in the same form as Christ - fully glorified - having glorified bodies --

Matt 17
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

Peter is so floored by what he sees he wants to make THREE memorials - three tabernacles.

The disciples are face-down in the dirt - but Moses and Elijah are in glorified form speaking with Christ who is himself fully transfigured in glorified form.

These are not lost or unconverted or super-holy-but-not-born-again lost persons


The text does not say that.

[FONT=&quot]Gal 1:6-11 There has been "only ONE Gospel" in both OT and NT - hint being born again is a key part of that Gospel. Heb 4:2 "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM also[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Spirit filled men of the OT "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ WITHIN them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow[/FONT][FONT=&quot]" 1Pet 1:11.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Ps 51:11 "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]take not your Holy Spirit from me[/FONT][FONT=&quot]" [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Ezek 11:19-20 "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]A New heart" a "new Spirit[/FONT][FONT=&quot]" put within.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is 63:10 Israel [/FONT][FONT=&quot]grieved God's "Holy Spirit[/FONT][FONT=&quot]".[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Haggai 2:5 "My Holy Spirit abiding IN your midst"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is 51:7 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In their heart[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was written the Law of God -[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Ps 37:31 - "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Law of God IS IN his heart[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Deut 6:6 God's Word "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]in your heart[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Rom 2:28-29 "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]He is not a Jew who is one outwardly... circumcision is that which is of the heart by the Spirit[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]

Hence all the OT saints and even "Righteousness which is by faith" in Heb 11 regarding those OT saints.

"Abraham saw My day and was glad" John 8.

The OT gospel saved - born-again, righeousness by faith and Moses and Elijah fully glorified in Matt 17 - with Christ so much so that Peter wants to make THREE tabernacles -- though face down in the dirt before them.



The bible does not say that.

"Abraham SAW My DAY and was glad" John 8.

Gal 1:6-9 "only ONE Gospel"
Gal 3:7 THAT Gospel was "preached to Abraham"

Same book, same Author, same subject.



It is which makes Him all that much more present and in-person God in the OT

"Seeking of whom the SPIRIT OF CHRIST WITHIN THEM was speaking"


1 Peter 1
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.

1Thess 5 - "Do not quench the Spirit" -- do not "GRIEVE" the Spirit.

AS they did.

 

[Chowmah]

You do realize that Jesus said that he fulfilled and kept all of the law,

Yup.

LUKE 24 [44] And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that ALL THINGS MUST BE FULFILLED, WHICH WERE WRITTEN IN THE LAW of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, CONCERNING ME.

HEBREWS 9 [1] Then verily THE FIRST COVENANT HAD ALSRDINANCES of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary..... [9] Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;[10] WHICH STOOD ONLY IN MEATS AND DRINKS, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation....[12] NEITHER BY THE BLOOD OF GOATS AND CALVES, BUT BY HIS OWN BLOOD he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Verse 1- The 1st covenant had ordinances
Verse 9- Which were a figure {a shadow}
Verse 9- Which were the meat and drink offerings for sin. Jesus fulfilled that part of the law of Moses
Verse 12- These offerings are now fulfilled in Christ

 

[Chowmah]

You do realize that Jesus said that he fulfilled and kept all of the law, and that per Paul, we are not now under the law of Moses, but under his grace, right?

JOHN 1 [15] John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. [16] And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. [17] FOR THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY MOSES, BUT GRACE AND TRUTH CAME BY JESUS CHRIST.

What law was givin by Moses? Its not talkin bout the 10 commandments here

LEVITICUS 16 [15] Then shall he KILL THE GOAT OF THE SIN OFFERING, that is for the people, and BRING HIS BLOOD WITHIN THE VAIL, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

Under the law of Moses the sin offering was the blood of animals {meat and drink offerings which were the shadow of Christ}. When Christ died the vail was rent {Luke 23v45}

EPHESIANS 1 [6] To the praise of the glory of HIS GRACE, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. [7] In whom we have redemption through HIS BLOOD, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of HIS GRACE;

By grace our sins are now forgiven through His blood

HEBREWS 13 [9] Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that THE HEART BE ESTABLISHED WITH GRACE; NOT WITH MEATS, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. [10] We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. [11] For THE BODIES OF THOSE BEASTS, WHOSE BLOOD is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. [12] Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. [13] Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

Hebrews 13 says it all. We are no longer under that portion of the law of Moses. It has been fulfilled by Christ. No more meat and drink offerings for the forgivness of sins.

JOHN 6 [55] For my flesh is MEAT indeed, and my blood is DRINK indeed.

 

[Darrell C]

I thought it was the same-ol' same-ol' from me. What is different??

There is a question for you here - #83 that I would appreciate getting your opinion of -

Blessings --

I don't remember an emphasis on things being the same, but now that you mention it, perhaps you are right, and I misspoke.

In regards to 83 (the post, not the year, lol...that was in my Metal days, or daze, both apply)...

...sorry, missed that.

In the post you are responding to - I gave as my example DHK arguing against the idea of NT Christians listening to scripture that is not NT.

You did something like that in your own post about the OT be the OT economy and not the New Covenant -- ie. possibly the OT is legalism even to the point of the teaching of Christ? I have provided that exchange below.

IF I am mistaken then what was the "other option" in your post for why we should not take the teaching of Christ in Mark 7 as fully applicable to New Covenant Jer 31:31-33 Christians?

Here is that exchange again.,


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Some may be tempted to think of Christ as a "legalist" when they read Mark 7 because it sounds so much like the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 - but Christ is not preaching salvation by Works --

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.



When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said”

In the case above the legalists are "making stuff up" about what you eat and drink with the washing (Baptizing) of cups and pots to remove supposed-sin from them.

The Law accomplishes condemnation for the lost.

But for the saved - it is written on the mind and heart. The very part of the New Covenant most rejected by some and accepted by others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Sorry, but that does not sound like the New Covenant, and could not be because it was still an Old Testament Economy Christ was under:


Galatians 4:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


We also see that here:


Luke 16:27-31

King James Version (KJV)

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Consider why Abraham does not say "They can hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ?"

Because it was not revealed in that Age.

Christ redeemed men from the Law, not into a better version of it.

That is why it is called the New Covenant.


God bless.

I "prefer" to think you would agree with what BrotherJoseph just said about having 66 books for Christians etc - but can't be sure.

You charged me with downsizing the Bible, and I'll be honest, I am not sure what you are talking about in regards to the 66 Books, which is the Canon I follow.

The reference to downsizing had nothing to do with what I was talking about, so I was puzzled as to why you would include me in that. In our discussion it was a false argument. I have never downsized, and giving the nature of the discussion it seemed more like a charge of a view that I don't think the Law of God applies to us. I do.

Just not the way you do.

Above you say...

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Some may be tempted to think of Christ as a "legalist" when they read Mark 7 because it sounds so much like the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 - but Christ is not preaching salvation by Works --

When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said”

In the case above the legalists are "making stuff up" about what you eat and drink with the washing (Baptizing) of cups and pots to remove supposed-sin from them.

The Law accomplishes condemnation for the lost.

But for the saved - it is written on the mind and heart. The very part of the New Covenant most rejected by some and accepted by others.

...which I said does not sound like the New Covenant, and I stand by that.

I guess the easiest way to say it, and I am not trying to be offensive, is that the view you are presenting seems very much like the way that men kept the Covenant in Christ's day. In other words, what you are teaching seems to be identical to that which was taught in Christ's day, and that is not what the New Covenant is all about.

God did not put His Spirit within us so we could keep the Covenant of Law, but so that we would understand the intention of the Covenant of Law, adequately contrasted by Christ in His "You have heard it said...but I say" teaching.

The regulations of the Covenant of Law were never the intent, but the result of those regulation the intent. That is why the Lord could say, and I paraphrase, "If you love God and your neighbor you will have fulfilled the Law." Not in the sense that this meant they didn't have to keep the Sabbath, but that the intent was righteous living motivated by love.

Hope that makes sense, and I hope that doesn't offend. It is just that the message you teach is seen as very legalistic, and contrary to the Lord's de-structuring, if you will, of the legalistic way of keeping that Covenant.

You say...

In the post you are responding to - I gave as my example DHK arguing against the idea of NT Christians listening to scripture that is not NT.

You did something like that in your own post about the OT be the OT economy and not the New Covenant -- ie. possibly the OT is legalism even to the point of the teaching of Christ? I have provided that exchange below.

IF I am mistaken then what was the "other option" in your post for why we should not take the teaching of Christ in Mark 7 as fully applicable to New Covenant Jer 31:31-33 Christians?

You are mistaken.

The teachings of Christ fall under the Old Testament Economy of Law. The Gospel was not revealed, and Christ's teachings in large part have application to the Millennial Kingdom.

I doubt seriously that DHK would restrict Christ's teaching as not Christian, or teachings obeyed by Christians, but I cannot speak for him, so I will just say, each teaching has to be examined in it's context, to determine how they apply.

Honoring our father and mother, I think I said before, is something that predates the Law. So does circumcision. Are we required to follow both? If so, why, and if not, why?

If we are going to follow the Law, then we are going to have to follow it as it is given. But no-one does that.

And we, being in relationship with God, not through the Covenant of Law as Israel was, but through the New Covenant, can point to the Levitical Priesthood as a large part of why we do not follow the Law.

It is contrary to the New Covenant, even as the Writer of Hebrews makes clear. To offer up those sacrifices again is to once again crucify Christ in picture, and shows that His sacrifice is rejected.

The "Law" of God we keep, and establish. But the Covenant of Law has been abrogated by a better, and a new and living Way.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry to have to press for details -- but I think this illustration may help clarify just where it is that our views of this differ - if they do differ.

===========================================================================


Originally Posted by BobRyan
Some may be tempted to think of Christ as a "legalist" when they read Mark 7 because it sounds so much like the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 - but Christ is not preaching salvation by Works --

[FONT=&quot]Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said”

The Law accomplishes condemnation for the lost.

[FONT=&quot]But for the sa[FONT=&quot]ved - it i[FONT=&quot]s written on the mind and heart. The very part of the New Covenant most reje[FONT=&quot]cted by some and accepted by others.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

You charged me with downsizing the Bible, and I'll be honest, I am not sure what you are talking about in regards to the 66 Books, which is the Canon I follow.

...

(Regarding Mark 7)
...which I said does not sound like the New Covenant, and I stand by that.

I guess the easiest way to say it, and I am not trying to be offensive, is that the view you are presenting seems very much like the way that men kept the Covenant in Christ's day.

Without turning this against me -- my question is about Christ's teaching in Mark 7:6-13. I am not the author of that text.

So the question is - given your response above -- are we allowed to accept Christ's teaching in Mark 7 or would true New Covenant Christians reject the teaching of Christ in Mark 7 - if they were using your model for Jer 31:31-33 "New Covenant"??

In other words, what you are teaching seems to be identical to that which was taught in Christ's day, and that is not what the New Covenant is all about.

Identical to what was taught by Christ in Mark 7:6-13 according to your quote above - right?

So then in your model the New Covenant -- NT Christian should not accept the teaching of Christ as applicable to himself today.

And the reason is because - the system they used back then was -- not the Gospel??

God did not put His Spirit within us so we could keep the Covenant of Law, but so that we would understand the intention of the Covenant of Law, adequately contrasted by Christ in His "You have heard it said...but I say" teaching.

Is He teaching legalism or "This Gospel of the Kingdom preached in all the world and then shall the end come" in the Gospels - in your model?

When in Matt 28 we have "Teaching them all things that I commanded you" -- is Christ instructing his disciples to preach the legalism that he taught? ARE they fulfilling that command when they then go on to write the GOSPEL accounts - calling it the Gospel??

The regulations of the Covenant of Law were never the intent, but the result of those regulation the intent. That is why the Lord could say, and I paraphrase, "If you love God and your neighbor you will have fulfilled the Law." Not in the sense that this meant they didn't have to keep the Sabbath, but that the intent was righteous living motivated by love.

So then that is the system they were under before the cross - in your model? And is that the Gospel or legalism by your definition?

Hope that makes sense, and I hope that doesn't offend. It is just that the message you teach is seen as very legalistic, and contrary to the Lord's de-structuring, if you will, of the legalistic way of keeping that Covenant.

you just argued that my acceptance of Christ's teaching Mark 7:6-13 is legalism - did you not??

You are mistaken.

The teachings of Christ fall under the Old Testament Economy of Law. The Gospel was not revealed,

So then his "THIS Gospel of the kingdom preached in all the world" statement in Matt 24 is about a 'not the Gospel' Gospel? An "Economy of Law" rather than the Gospel... being preached in all the world?

I doubt seriously that DHK would restrict Christ's teaching as not Christian, or teachings obeyed by Christians, but I cannot speak for him, so I will just say, each teaching has to be examined in it's context, to determine how they apply.

And did you not just say that the Mark 7:6-13 teaching of Christ is not the New Covenant, not the Gospel - is 'the economy of Law" and that NT Christians should not regard it as applicable to them?

Honoring our father and mother, I think I said before, is something that predates the Law. So does circumcision. Are we required to follow both? If so, why, and if not, why?

The Law about honoring your Father and Mother predates the Law?

Where do you see that in the bible?

It is contrary to the New Covenant, even as the Writer of Hebrews makes clear. To offer up those sacrifices again is to once again crucify Christ in picture, and shows that His sacrifice is rejected.

I agree that the animal sacrifices have ended as Hebrews 10 states.

The "Law" of God we keep, and establish. But the Covenant of Law has been abrogated by a better, and a new and living Way.

Do you simply mean "animal sacrifices" when you say "Covenant of Law" ??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darrell C]

Sorry to have to press for details -- but I think this illustration may help clarify just where it is that our views of this differ - if they do differ.

================================================== =========================


Originally Posted by BobRyan
Some may be tempted to think of Christ as a "legalist" when they read Mark 7 because it sounds so much like the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 - but Christ is not preaching salvation by Works --

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.



When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said”

The Law accomplishes condemnation for the lost.

But for the saved - it is written on the mind and heart. The very part of the New Covenant most rejected by some and accepted by others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post

You charged me with downsizing the Bible, and I'll be honest, I am not sure what you are talking about in regards to the 66 Books, which is the Canon I follow.

...

(Regarding Mark 7)
...which I said does not sound like the New Covenant, and I stand by that.

I guess the easiest way to say it, and I am not trying to be offensive, is that the view you are presenting seems very much like the way that men kept the Covenant in Christ's day.

Without turning this against me -- my question is about Christ's teaching in Mark 7:6-13. I am not the author of that text.

No, you are the author of the interpretation I have disagreed with.

And in your very proof-text...


Mark 7:6-13

King James Version (KJV)

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


...we see the Lord rebuking them for their incorrect understanding and application of the Law.

Bringing a gift, for example, when honoring one's mother and father had been violated...made their worship erroneous and brought them in conflict with the intent of the Law. The tradition was one of external compliance which is the very thing God deals with in the New Covenant, placing His Spirit within us that we might keep His statutes and judgments.

Now understand where you are getting confused about my position: these people were under the Law, even as Christ was under the Law...


Galatians 4:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


And what that means is that the Law...never redeemed the adherent, even if it had been possible for anyone to keep it:


Hebrews 8:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:


Paul makes it clear...


Galatians 3:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.


...but that was never the intention of the Law:


Galatians 3:24-25

King James Version (KJV)

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


We are no longer under that schoolmaster Bob. It was a temporary Covenant and Paul makes that very clear.

So the question is - given your response above -- are we allowed to accept Christ's teaching in Mark 7 or would true New Covenant Christians reject the teaching of Christ in Mark 7 -

We do not reject any teaching of God at any period of time in history.

Because all of God's teachings are consistent and in harmony with each other, there is no conflict.

It is your perspective and teaching that comes under fire for how it is presented. You have ignored very clear statements in Inspired Scripture which make it clear that the Covenant of Law was not revised, it was abrogated.

And again, your teaching does not resemble the New Covenant, but the First Covenant Revised. Updated.

And there is just too much Scripture denying that so that is why I, and some others, challenge your teaching.

if they were using your model for Jer 31:31-33 "New Covenant"??

Let's skip the hypotheticals and just deal with what you and I have discussed, okay?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
In other words, what you are teaching seems to be identical to that which was taught in Christ's day, and that is not what the New Covenant is all about.

Identical to what was taught by Christ in Mark 7:6-13 according to your quote above - right?

No...identical to what the people taught, meaning their understanding and how they taught it to the people:


Matthew 23:1-3

King James Version (KJV)

23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


I have never undermined Christ's teaching itself.

So then in your model the New Covenant -- NT Christian should not accept the teaching of Christ as applicable to himself today.

False argument...I have never suggested that.

It is your teaching as compared to that of the religious rulers of Christ's day I am comparing.

And again, I am not trying to offend, just giving an honest assessment. I do not question your sincerity or salvation. I believe you are a child of God, and a brother, and...just a little confused. If I didn't care about you, Bob, I would not raise an objection.

And the reason is because - the system they used back then was -- not the Gospel??

Of course it was not the Gospel.

It was but a shadow of the Gospel.

They offered up sacrifice for the atonement of sin just as they were commanded by God. Do you equate that to the Atonement?

God did not put His Spirit within us so we could keep the Covenant of Law, but so that we would understand the intention of the Covenant of Law, adequately contrasted by Christ in His "You have heard it said...but I say" teaching.

Is He teaching legalism or "This Gospel of the Kingdom preached in all the world and then shall the end come" in the Gospels - in your model?

He is just confronting error. Again "...ye have heard it said (tradition taught by men), but I say unto you (exposition of the true intent of the Law)."

When in Matt 28 we have "Teaching them all things that I commanded you" -- is Christ instructing his disciples to preach the legalism that he taught?

And we obey that directive, we confront and seek to correct error when we see it.

ARE they fulfilling that command when they then go on to write the GOSPEL accounts - calling it the Gospel??

The Gospel is not to be thought of as every word founds in the Gospels, but is specific to the Work of Christ.

Understanding the difference between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is one thing that most...do not do. I tried to help you with that before, but you are not at this time ready to examine the validity of that view.

Why did the Lord tell the disciples, when He sent them out to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom...not to go to the Samaritans and Gentiles? Because the Gospel of the Kingdom is Israel specific, whereas the Gospel of Christ is sent out unto all the world, as commanded in the Great Commission and seen in Acts one...after that they had received the Promise of the Father taught unto them by Christ.

It is a fundamental error that undergirds every Theology System that I am aware of.

The closest I have seen a group get might be the Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, yet they too carry so much baggage with certain truth that their message is corrupted too.

Just tell me Peter was not in opposition to the Gospel and we are done.

The regulations of the Covenant of Law were never the intent, but the result of those regulation the intent. That is why the Lord could say, and I paraphrase, "If you love God and your neighbor you will have fulfilled the Law." Not in the sense that this meant they didn't have to keep the Sabbath, but that the intent was righteous living motivated by love.

So then that is the system they were under before the cross -

That is the System they under before the Cross. Unfortunately, many willingly, despite the Writer of Hebrews warning...put themselves under it today.

We are not minister of the First Covenant, Bob, but ministers of the New Covenant. That is an important distinction Paul makes, and we see his opposition to the First Covenant in many, many places in not only His writings but the writings of other Writers.

in your model?

Not my model, and I hope one day you understand that.

And is that the Gospel or legalism by your definition?

I have been very clear as to my view.

Hope that makes sense, and I hope that doesn't offend. It is just that the message you teach is seen as very legalistic, and contrary to the Lord's de-structuring, if you will, of the legalistic way of keeping that Covenant.

you just argued that my acceptance of Christ's teaching Mark 7:6-13 is legalism - did you not??

What I said was...


We must honor our Mother and Father for the same reason which it was written in the Law for: because God has commanded it.

And the same penalty still lies upon Christians for failure to obey God: physical death.

But the confusion is raised when people impose a salvific element to obedience to the Law.

It was never intended to bring about Eternal Salvation.

Now how would people know to honor their Father and Mother before the Law was given, Bob?


You imply I don't accept Christ's teaching and that I have said we, as Christians, are not compelled to embrace those teachings as for us.

I never said that.

What I have continuously said is that the intent of the Law is still the guiding principle we obey.

You confuse that with the Covenant of Law itself, and then consider it to be following the Law of God as you pick through it. That option was never given to anyone who was made under the Law.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You are mistaken.

The teachings of Christ fall under the Old Testament Economy of Law. The Gospel was not revealed,

So then his "THIS Gospel of the kingdom preached in all the world" statement in Matt 24 is about a 'not the Gospel' Gospel?

No, Bob, it is not, it is specific to the Tribulation.


Matthew 24:13-15

King James Version (KJV)

13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)


The Kingdom in view is the Millennial Kingdom. Not the Kingdom Christ established through His death, whereby we are translated, at salvation, into that Kingdom. Just because the word "gospel" is used in a text does not mean we impose the Gospel of Christ into it.

The "Gospel Gospel," lol, is that man cannot save himself from the penalty of sin, and that Christ died to take upon Himself that penalty. That he is separated from God and must be reconciled through Christ.

Two entirely different issues.

An "Economy of Law" rather than the Gospel... being preached in all the world?

Not sure why you would question it was the Economy of Law at that time. That economy did not end until Pentecost.

That is when the Comforter came and Christ began building His Church through the eternal indwelling of God which was the means of reconciliation, the bringing of man back into intimate spiritual relationship with God.

We see that here:


Titus 3:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


The renewing of the Holy Ghost is not the cleansing and creation of the new creature, that is accounted for in the phrase "washing of regeneration." The renewing (and it's open to debate, I understand that) of the Holy Ghost is the relationship that brings about regeneration, it is man being Baptized into Christ literally. We are immersed into God at salvation. We are identified with Christ through that spiritual relationship.

I doubt seriously that DHK would restrict Christ's teaching as not Christian, or teachings obeyed by Christians, but I cannot speak for him, so I will just say, each teaching has to be examined in it's context, to determine how they apply.

And did you not just say that the Mark 7:6-13 teaching of Christ is not the New Covenant,

Basically: the Lord is rebuking them for their failure to understand the First Covenant, not teaching them about the New Covenant.

not the Gospel -

It is not the Gospel, it is a rebuke for erroneous understanding of the Law. God's intent in giving the Law.

We have no excuse as they did, though. We have the revelation of God of the Mystery of Christ and the New Covenant.

Failure to understand today by a born again believer is disobedience to the Command of God...to understand.

is 'the economy of Law"

It is unquestionably a period under the Law, yes. Why you would deny that is beyond me.

and that NT Christians should not regard it as applicable to them?

And again...a false argument. Never offered by me.

I, personally, think we are commanded to replicate the Lord here and teach, correct, and rebuke...erroneous doctrine and practice.

Wouldn't you agree?

Honoring our father and mother, I think I said before, is something that predates the Law. So does circumcision. Are we required to follow both? If so, why, and if not, why?

The Law about honoring your Father and Mother predates the Law?

Do you suppose that is an after-thought of God's?

Is not obedience to the Father Himself expressed in obedience to the model? Earthly fathers?

We don't see specific record of God commanding sacrifice for sin in Genesis before Cain and Abel, but we see implicitly that the knowledge was already in play, Abel's accepted because he was obedient, Cain's rejected because he offered up strange sacrifice:


Genesis 4

King James Version (KJV)


4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:


Abel's was an offering of shed blood, an atoning sacrifice.

We see no record of command given to Noah, yet...


Genesis 8:20-22

King James Version (KJV)

20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.


Job, thought to be a contemporary of Abraham...


Job 1

King James Version (KJV)


5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.


So yes, I think we can safely say God is consistent and we can say that an expectation of honoring our fathers and mothers...predates the Law.

Where do you see that in the bible?

We see many things that are not explicit, but implicit.

Not understanding that is what led to man's failure to keep the Law, thus the need for God to establish a New Covenant.

It is contrary to the New Covenant, even as the Writer of Hebrews makes clear. To offer up those sacrifices again is to once again crucify Christ in picture, and shows that His sacrifice is rejected.

I agree that the animal sacrifices have ended as Hebrews 10 states.

The writer makes it clear that what has ended is the Covenant of Law.

The "Law" of God we keep, and establish. But the Covenant of Law has been abrogated by a better, and a new and living Way.

Do you simply mean "animal sacrifices" when you say "Covenant of Law" ??

in Christ,

Bob

I mean the Covenant of Law when I say "The Covenant of Law."

Which was only a shadow of the reality of God's Redemptive Plan. Christ is the Covenant that God intended to establish almost literally from day one:


Genesis 3:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.



Isaiah 42:5-7

King James Version (KJV)

5 Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.



There is no question Who is in view here, and we see God is consistent.

And we understand that the Covenant of Law had it's purpose, but that purpose has ended, for we are no longer under the school master, but have come under the Covenant that was God's Redemptive Plan all along.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

1. I don't think it makes sense to say 'the Law predates the Law" when you speak of "honor your father and mother" - unless you mean that the moral Law of God precedes the written form of that Law at Sinai.

2. I don't find "do not take God's name in vain" or "Honor your father and mother" prior to sinai - but I know it was there before.

And even the pro-Sunday sources know that the Sabbath "was made for mankind" and that Ex 20:11 points back to the Gen 2:1-3 event as the start of the Sabbath Commandment.

3. Jer 31:31-33 says that in the New Covenant God will "Write His LAW on the mind and heart" - which is fully consistent with Christ's teaching in Mark 7:6-13 where Christ insists that His Law is greater than man-made traditions and man-made-commandments.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry to have to press for details -- but I think this illustration may help clarify just where it is that our views of this differ - if they do differ.

===========================================================================


Originally Posted by BobRyan
Some may be tempted to think of Christ as a "legalist" when they read Mark 7 because it sounds so much like the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 - but Christ is not preaching salvation by Works --

[FONT=&quot]Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said”

The Law accomplishes condemnation for the lost.

[FONT=&quot]But for the sa[FONT=&quot]ved - it i[FONT=&quot]s written on the mind and heart. The very part of the New Covenant most reje[FONT=&quot]cted by some and accepted by others.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]



Without turning this against me -- my question is about Christ's teaching in Mark 7:6-13. I am not the author of that text.

So the question is - given your response above -- are we allowed to accept Christ's teaching in Mark 7 or would true New Covenant Christians reject the teaching of Christ in Mark 7 - if they were using your model for Jer 31:31-33 "New Covenant"??

Identical to what was taught by Christ in Mark 7:6-13 according to your quote above - right?

So then in your model the New Covenant -- NT Christian should not accept the teaching of Christ as applicable to himself today.

And the reason is because - the system they used back then was -- not the Gospel??

Is He teaching legalism or "This Gospel of the Kingdom preached in all the world and then shall the end come" in the Gospels - in your model?

When in Matt 28 we have "Teaching them all things that I commanded you" -- is Christ instructing his disciples to preach the legalism that he taught? ARE they fulfilling that command when they then go on to write the GOSPEL accounts - calling it the Gospel??


So then that is the system they were under before the cross - in your model? And is that the Gospel or legalism by your definition?

No, you are the author of the interpretation I have disagreed with.

And in your very proof-text...


Mark 7:6-13

King James Version (KJV)

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

You have just re-posted the same text I just quoted from the NASB - and aside from a few more 'ye' - s and "thou's" in your quote - I don't see where this has helped your point.

What did I miss??

...we see the Lord rebuking them for their incorrect understanding and application of the Law.

Bringing a gift, for example, when honoring one's mother and father had been violated...made their worship erroneous and brought them in conflict with the intent of the Law. The tradition was one of external compliance which is the very thing God deals with in the New Covenant, placing His Spirit within us that we might keep His statutes and judgments.

Actually Christ points out that the made-up rule results in a situation -- as identified by Christ -- where man-made-commandment would have been followed to the downsizing... setting-aside of one of what Christ calls "God's Commandments" -- 'the Word of God" -- "Moses said"

Now understand where you are getting confused about my position: these people were under the Law, even as Christ was under the Law...


Galatians 4:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

The question asked was whether Christ's instruction about not tampering with God's Commandments via making-stuff-up is a good teaching for Christians to follow. I think you are getting sidetracked by the fact that they had animal sacrifices back then. But this is not about animal sacrifices - not even about the ceremonial law in the actual Bible..

We do not reject any teaching of God at any period of time in history.

Because all of God's teachings are consistent and in harmony with each other, there is no conflict.

So then your statement about the Mark 7:6-13 teaching of Christ not being in harmony with the NEW Covenant was a mistake??

Or we can follow teaching that are not in harmony with the New Covenant?

It is your perspective and teaching that comes under fire for how it is presented. You have ignored very clear statements in Inspired Scripture which make it clear that the Covenant of Law was not revised, it was abrogated.

No text saying "God's Law has been Abrogated".

No text saying "Commandments of God are now abrogated".

But we DO have "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19

and we DO have "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15

and we DO have "the SAINTS KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

and we DO have -- there is only ONE Gospel - Gal 1:6-9

A point so clear - that even the majority of pro-Sunday scholars accept this detail about the TEN Commandments including Charles Swindoll and the "Baptist Confession of Faith".

Let's skip the hypotheticals and just deal with what you and I have discussed, okay?


Continued...

The reason for mentioning the "New Covenant" in Jer 31:31-33 is that exegesis is what we use to keep from inserting bias into the meaning of terms. Exegesis demands that we pay attention to the the subject and teaching as the author of the text knew it and as his readers would have known it - to rightly interpret the meaning.

It is not a "nice to have" --- it is a "must have".

Those pro-Sunday sources could not have ignored this detail either.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[vooks]

You have just re-posted the same text I just quoted from the NASB - and aside from a few more 'ye' - s and "thou's" in your quote - I don't see where this has helped your point.

What did I miss??



Actually Christ points out that the made-up rule results in a situation -- as identified by Christ -- where man-made-commandment would have been followed to the downsizing... setting-aside of one of what Christ calls "God's Commandments" -- 'the Word of God" -- "Moses said"




The question asked was whether Christ's instruction about not tampering with God's Commandments via making-stuff-up is a good teaching for Christians to follow. I think you are getting sidetracked by the fact that they had animal sacrifices back then. But this is not about animal sacrifices - not even about the ceremonial law in the actual Bible..




So then your statement about the Mark 7:6-13 teaching of Christ not being in harmony with the NEW Covenant was a mistake??

Or we can follow teaching that are not in harmony with the New Covenant?



No text saying "God's Law has been Abrogated".

No text saying "Commandments of God are now abrogated".

But we DO have "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19

and we DO have "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15

and we DO have "the SAINTS KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

and we DO have -- there is only ONE Gospel - Gal 1:6-9

A point so clear - that even the majority of pro-Sunday scholars accept this detail about the TEN Commandments including Charles Swindoll and the "Baptist Confession of Faith".


in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan,
'Abrogation' is not the thing that keeps me from attempting to keep the Law, FULFILMENT is. That's why we don't chase shadows, but rather the reality that is Christ