Define "The Gospel"

[BobRyan]

>So you are saying that some commands in the OT are just for Jews?

The NT teaches that Mosaic additions - Exo thru Deut - are just for the Jews.

Far from it - the NT constantly quotes Ex thru Deut as authorotative.

Tiny example -

Lev 19:18 Love your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13, Matt 22, James 2)
Deut 6:5 Love God with all of your heart (Matt 22, James 2)

Ex 20 regarding "Honor your father and mother" - Eph 6:1-4, Mark 7

In Mark 7 Jesus condemns the idea of setting aside the commandments of God in order to keep man made tradition.

In 1Cor 7:19 Paul says "but what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

Acts 15 continues the Lev 17 prohibition against eating animal blood and animals that have been strangled.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

yes the laws about annual feast days, circumcision etc - are just applicable to Jews in the OT. No OT gentile believers were required to observe such things. Not in the OT - not in the NT.

in Christ,

Bob

What OT scripture causes you to come to this conclusion.

 

[billwald]

>Acts 15 continues the Lev 17 prohibition against eating animal blood and animals that have been strangled.

It would have been a simple matter for the Jerusalem Council to admonish the gentiles to observe the 10 Commandments but they didn't. Why not? Because they do not apply to gentiles. Why, then, was the law about eating blood singled out? Because it was the official interpretation of the Noahic Covenant which obligate all humans.

> Far from it - the NT constantly quotes Ex thru Deut as authorotative.

>Tiny example -

>Lev 19:18 Love your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13, Matt 22, James 2)
>Deut 6:5 Love God with all of your heart (Matt 22, James 2)>


Your Bible has quotation marks around these quotations? Why must they be quotations? Can they not be NT Law for gentiles?

 

[BobRyan]

>Acts 15 continues the Lev 17 prohibition against eating animal blood and animals that have been strangled.

It would have been a simple matter for the Jerusalem Council to admonish the gentiles to observe the 10 Commandments but they didn't. Why not? Because they do not apply to gentiles.

Wrong.

In 1Cor 7:19 Paul says "what Matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" - this is right after telling the gentiles they need not worry about circumcision.

Thus in 1Cor 7 we have Paul doing the very thing you claim he must not do.

There is a good reason for it - the Ten Commandments REMAIN as the Law defining sin and they are often quoted in the NT for that very purpose.

Hint - Romans 7.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

>In 1Cor 7:19 Paul says "what Matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" - this is right after telling the gentiles they need not worry about circumcision.

THAT PARALLELS AND CONFIRMS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. Doesn't anyone on this list know how to read English?

> the Ten Commandments REMAIN as the Law defining sin and they are often quoted in the NT for that very purpose.

WRONG! the NT Law parallels the OT Law in places.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
yes the laws about annual feast days, circumcision etc - are just applicable to Jews in the OT. No OT gentile believers were required to observe such things. Not in the OT - not in the NT.

What OT scripture causes you to come to this conclusion.

I am leaving it as an exercise for the reader to discover that in the OT - Jews were required to be circumcised and that Paul continued to insist on that even in Acts 16:1-3 in the case of Timothy.

I leave it to you - to show that in the OT God required all believing gentiles to be circumcised -- it did not find such a thing - but you seem to be making the claim that you may have found it - please share with us here if that is the case.

In Gal 2:3-5 Paul is very happy about the fact that the gentile "Titus" was not required to be circumcised.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

>In 1Cor 7:19 Paul says "what Matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" - this is right after telling the gentiles they need not worry about circumcision.

THAT PARALLELS AND CONFIRMS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. Doesn't anyone on this list know how to read English?

.

Exegesis requires that we admit that Paul knew about the Bible - knew about scripture - NEW that God's word contained the "Commandments of God" and that his readers were also aware of that fact.

Once the Bible student notices that detail - the rest as they say is a trivial exercise. It leads to the innescapable conclusion that God's Word was regarded as having authority - EVEN for NT readers and authors.

Thus Paul's statement in 2Tim 3:16-17.

Thus the blessing and approval of the "sola scriptura" method that we see in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

I find it a little odd that I am having to provide the same arguments in favor of sola scriptura from the NT text as I have had to do on some other threads recently - with non-Baptists primarily on the opposing side of those threads. I may have missed something Bill - but I could have sworn you were in favor of the "sola scriptura" solution as a Bible based solution. Did I miss something?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

I am leaving it as an exercise for the reader to discover that in the OT - Jews were required to be circumcised and that Paul continued to insist on that even in Acts 16:1-3 in the case of Timothy.

I leave it to you - to show that in the OT God required all believing gentiles to be circumcised -- it did not find such a thing - but you seem to be making the claim that you may have found it - please share with us here if that is the case.

In Gal 2:3-5 Paul is very happy about the fact that the gentile "Titus" was not required to be circumcised.

in Christ,

Bob

Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which [is] not of thy seed.
Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

The children of the strangers, of whom the master of the family was the true domestic owner, were to be circumcised (v. 12, 13), which looked favourable upon the Gentiles, who should in due time be brought into the family of Abraham, by faith. See Gal. 3:14. (Matthew Henry)

 

[billwald]

Matt 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

"Prophets refers to whom/what?"

"Law" refers to what?

Does Jesus not claim that prophets have equal authority and application with Law?

 

[DHK]

Wrong.

In 1Cor 7:19 Paul says "what Matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" - this is right after telling the gentiles they need not worry about circumcision.

Thus in 1Cor 7 we have Paul doing the very thing you claim he must not do.
Bob

Yes, the commandments concerning marriage. Read the chapter.
Commandments like:

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

 

[BobRyan]

Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which [is] not of thy seed.
Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Certainly it is true that to be physically included in Abraham's household - they were all circumcised.

It is not clear at all that Abraham circumcised Melchizedek - who was declared King of Salem and Priest of God - and to whom Abraham paid tithes.

It is not clear at all that Naaman was circumcised by Elisha - when he turned from worshipping false god's - to worshipping the one true God.

It is not clear at all that the "foreigners" mentioned in Isaiah 56:6 were required to be circumcised. In fact this point is "sooo clear" in Eph 2 that Paul declares that those who are in fact physically circumcised are not regarded by Jews as foreigners - but as fellow believing Jews. In Gal 5 Paul argues that if a gentile is circumcised they are basically claiming the same role as the Jews -- who were designated by God to be "the Royal Priesthood and Holy Nation" of the OT (1Peter 2:9) under the "Nation Evangelist" model.

Today - after the Cross - with the Christian church - we are under a new system - the "priesthood of all believers" the "persecuted church" model for evangelism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In 1Cor 7:19 Paul says "what Matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" - this is right after telling the gentiles they need not worry about circumcision.

Thus in 1Cor 7 we have Paul doing the very thing you claim he must not do.

Yes, the commandments concerning marriage. Read the chapter.
Commandments like:

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

All can agree that the 7th commandment is part of "The Commandments of God".

But it would be hard to argue that "it is the only commandment".

And it would be impossible to argue that when Jeremiah penned the instruction about the New Covenant promise of the "LAW written on the heart" that he and his readers were intent on limiting that to the 7th commandment.

In Mark 7 - Christ flatly condemns the Jews for placing man-made tradition above the Commandments of God - (in that case singling out the 5th commandment as an illustration).

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

D.L Moody has a very interesting sermon on the continued authority of the Ten Commandments.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

All can agree that the 7th commandment is part of "The Commandments of God".

But it would be hard to argue that "it is the only commandment".

And it would be impossible to argue that when Jeremiah penned the instruction about the New Covenant promise of the "LAW written on the heart" that he and his readers were intent on limiting that to the 7th commandment.

In Mark 7 - Christ flatly condemns the Jews for placing man-made tradition above the Commandments of God - (in that case singling out the 5th commandment as an illustration).

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of Godin order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

D.L Moody has a very interesting sermon on the continued authority of the Ten Commandments.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob just about everything you wrote is irrelevant to 1Cor.7:19.
Your eisigesis is to squeeze the entire Pentateuch into this one verse. It is the most terrible example of hermeneutics that I have ever seen. It doesn't matter who believes what on the Sabbath. 1Cor.7:19 is speaking of the principles of love and marriage. To insert "the Sabbath" in there is going to the point of heresy, because it is so far out on a limb. It has nothing to do with love and marriage. Learn to properly exegete a passage of Scripture and not to pull one verse out of its context and use it as your proof text.

What you are doing is of the same degree as this.
The Bible says "There is no God."
Indeed it proclaims "There is no God"
The reference is in Psalms 14:1
The context: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Your explanation is just as foolish!!

 

[BobRyan]

Bob just about everything you wrote is irrelevant to 1Cor.7:19.

Except for the part where the Commandments of God are the Ten Commandments.

Except for the part where Paul refers to the 7th commandment in Rom 7 and to the 5th commandment in Eph 6 and to the 8th and 9th commandments in Rom 13 and where James does the same...

And except for the part where it is shown that even in Jeremiah's context of Jer 31:32 "The Law of God" would be known to include the Ten Commandments.

1Cor.7:19 is speaking of the principles of love and marriage.

1. 1Cor 7 does not limit itself to the subject of Marriage. - Obviously.

18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [b]what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

To bend and wrench that to "just apply to marriage" would require that anyone who got saved as a single person - is not allowed to get married.

You have gone so far in your avoid-the-Law-of-God solution that you have found yet "another extreme".

What you are doing is of the same degree as this.
The Bible says "There is no God."
Indeed it proclaims "There is no God"

Wrong.

Not once have I argued a case where Paul says "the heathen say that it is important to keep the Law of God" and then pretend that Paul is the one affirming it - just because he claims the heathing think it. (As your illustration above would require).

Thus once again - you are "reaching" for a solution to your dilemma - and simply not finding it.

This is not as hard for the objective unbiased reader to see as you appear to have first imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Except for the part where the Commandments of God are the Ten Commandments.

You have added to the Word of God. It doesn't say that. It is speaking of marriage. The entire chapter is about marriage. Why are you trying to fit the entire Pentateuch into one chapter, yea, even one verse that speaks about marriage. I shoot people for less. :smilewinkgrin:

Except for the part where Paul refers to the 7th commandment in Rom 7 and to the 5th commandment in Eph 6 and to the 8th and 9th commandments in Rom 13 and where James does the same...

And where BobRyan does the same: reads the OT into the NT where it does not belong to build a case of a works-based salvation that does not exist.

And except for the part where it is shown that even in Jeremiah's context of Jer 31:32 "The Law of God" would be known to include the Ten Commandments.

Show me one reference to Jeremiah in 1Cor.7. It is not there. You deceive the people on purpose, deliberately??

1. 1Cor 7 does not limit itself to the subject of Marriage. - Obviously.

Then keep the OT law out of it. That is not what it is speaking about--obviously!

18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised?

He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [b]what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

To bend and wrench that to "just apply to marriage" would require that anyone who got saved as a single person - is not allowed to get married.

Does it say that? Where? Is that the only thing it says?
You must be blind to the "commands" of Scripture in 1Cor.7

You have gone so far in your avoid-the-Law-of-God solution that you have found yet "another extreme".

The law of God, as presented in Scripture, must always be taken in the context that it is written in. The context here is marriage, not EGW; not SDA doctrine.

Wrong.

I am not wrong. Here is the verse:
Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
--I have quoted a part of this verse (There is no God), just as you keep quoting only a part of 1Cor.7:19 (keeping the commandments of God). It is not even the entire verse. Your method of hermeneutics is exactly the same as what I have done.

The Bible says "There is no God."
The Bible says "Keep the commandments of God"
Your method of hermeneutics is exactly the same.

Not once have I argued a case where Paul says "the heathen say that it is important to keep the Law of God" and then pretend that Paul is the one affirming it - just because he claims the heathing think it. (As your illustration above would require).

My illustration does not require that. It simply illustrates that you use a certain method of hermeneutics. And you do.

 

[BobRyan]

1. 1Cor 7 does not limit itself to the subject of Marriage. - Obviously.

18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [b]what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

You have added to the Word of God. It doesn't say that. It is speaking of marriage.

I am not as opposed to letting the unbiased objective reader - go ahead and read the text above that so directly refutes your guesswork as you may have at first supposed.

:type:

The entire chapter is about marriage. Why are you trying to fit the entire Pentateuch into one chapter,

I say "again" -

18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [b]what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called

The Commandments of God are given as that which we are to keep and that - in direct comparison to "circumcision" referring to the Jewish Christian vs Gentile Christian issue in the first century church.

We see the "Commandments of God" mentioned yet again in Rev 12 and Rev 14 as that which the saints actually "keep".

.

Show me one reference to Jeremiah in 1Cor.7. It is not there.

My reference to the "New Covenant" in Jer 31:32 is directly related to "The Gospel" title of this thread - as it turns out.

Which means - Jer 31 does not have to be quoted in every text of scripture in the NT in order for us to discuss it on a thread dealing with the Gospel.

I merely point out that the Jer 31:32 text is "consistent" in upholding the Law of God - with what Paul says in 1Cor 7:19 about our keeping the Commandments of God and if you care to read this part of scripture - Rom 3:31 points to the "Law of God" being "established" by our faith - our faith under the New Covenant - our faith under the ONE Gospel of Gal 1:6-11

You deceive the people on purpose

How sad that when your point runs aground you so quickly resort to personal ad hominem in thread after thread, subject after subject.

A bit too predictable.

Then keep the OT law out of it. That is not what it is speaking about--obviously!

You are of course free to imagine whatever you like - but Paul was aware of the "Commandments of God" as were his readers.

you may find this point to be "inconvenient" and well... so beit - but it is not as difficult for the unbiased objective reader to see as you appear to have imagined.

The Bible says "There is no God."
The Bible says "Keep the commandments of God"
Your method of hermeneutics is exactly the same.

Not even close

Wrong.

Not once have I argued a case where Paul says "the heathen say that it is important to keep the Law of God" and then pretend that Paul is the one affirming it - just because he claims the heathing think it. (As your illustration above would require).

Thus once again - you are "reaching" for a solution to your dilemma - and simply not finding it.

This is not as hard for the objective unbiased reader to see as you appear to have first imagined.

- but if your view "needs" you to make that up - go ahead as you choose.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

I am not as opposed to letting the unbiased objective reader - go ahead and read the text above that so directly refutes your guesswork as you may have at first supposed.

You post the same Scripture and assume that people reading it are going to read into it SDA doctrine just because you have been indoctrinated that way Bob? Surely you jest? There is nothing there about Levitical law; dietary law; SDA law; etc. The chapter is about marriage and matters pertaining to marriage. How difficult is that for you to comprehend. If you have any direct question of how any of these Scriptures do not relate in some way (whether directly or indirectly) to marriage I will endeavor to explain it to you. But there is nothing here about the Levitical law, the Pentateuch, the Ceremonial law of Moses, SDA law, etc.

I say "again" -

18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [b]what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called

The Commandments of God are given as that which we are to keep and that - in direct comparison to "circumcision" referring to the Jewish Christian vs Gentile Christian issue in the first century church.

1 Corinthians 7:20 Let each man stay in that calling in which he was called.
--Whether Jew or Gentile; slave or free; rich or poor; etc. each man was to stay in that calling in which he was called. They were one in Christ. They were not to envy one another. The chapter is about marriage. It would not make any difference to a woman whether her spouse is circumcised or uncircumcised; or rich or poor. We are one in Christ. Thus Paul de-emphasizes the law. He puts no value on circumcision at all. It is not important. As Christians we don't have to keep it. The law is not to be regarded as necessary.
The verse teaches the opposite of what you teach! (i.e. vs. 19)

We see the "Commandments of God" mentioned yet again in Rev 12 and Rev 14 as that which the saints actually "keep".

That point is moot. The gospel is not in Revelation 12 or 14; it is in 1Cor.15:1-4. Your references in Revelation have nothing to do with this subject.

My reference to the "New Covenant" in Jer 31:32 is directly related to "The Gospel" title of this thread - as it turns out.

Which means - Jer 31 does not have to be quoted in every text of scripture in the NT in order for us to discuss it on a thread dealing with the Gospel.

If Jeremiah 31 was clear about the gospel message then the OT saints wouldn't have needed Christ to come and die for them.
They would have had all the prophetic message right there before them. They would have had the gospel as clear as we have it right now.
But that was not so. They did not have the gospel. Jer.31:32 is not the gospel.
Your contention is that this is the gospel:

Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

If that is true, I am truly sad for you.

I merely point out that the Jer 31:32 text is "consistent" in upholding the Law of God - with what Paul says in 1Cor 7:19 about our keeping the Commandments of God and if you care to read this part of scripture - Rom 3:31 points to the "Law of God" being "established" by our faith - our faith under the New Covenant - our faith under the ONE Gospel of Gal 1:6-11

Is this your "There is no God" hermeneutic again?
Jeremiah 31:32 is not the gospel, and has nothing to do with the gospel.
The law has nothing to do with the gospel.
The "commandments of God" have nothing to do with the gospel.
The gospel is found in 1Cor.15:1-4.

How sad that when your point runs aground you so quickly resort to personal ad hominem in thread after thread, subject after subject.

It was no ad hominem Bob. It was and is truth. The "ad hominem" that you are referring to is my statement that "you are adding to the Word of God, and thus 'deceiving the people'". Is it true or not?

1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Bob's interpretation: keeping the TEN Commandments of God
Again, you are adding to the Word of God deliberately deceiving the people; no ad hominem here Bob.

You are of course free to imagine whatever you like - but Paul was aware of the "Commandments of God" as were his readers.

you may find this point to be "inconvenient" and well... so beit - but it is not as difficult for the unbiased objective reader to see as you appear to have imagined.

Paul plainly stated that the law was a school master to bring us to Christ. How? By showing us our sinfulness. No man can keep the law. The law is not and never was part of the gospel. Those who try to keep the law are condemned by the law. We are all aware of the law. We are aware of the condemnation of the law.

Not even close

- but if your view "needs" you to make that up - go ahead as you choose.

in Christ,

Bob

I don't make things up Bob. It is a simple hermeneutic. The fact is you don't want to see it. So when you say "not even close," it is because you are intentionally being blind to what is being shown you.
Look again.

1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
--You have taken one phrase (four words) out of this verse and made that your premise of much of your theology. Over and over again we hear: "the commandments of God," keeping the commandments of God, etc.

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
--Four words just like in the previous verse; just four words.
"There is no God." Like you one can repeat them over and over again, and affirm that the Bible teaches that there is no God. As you teach that "keeping the commandments of God" is absolutely necessary for salvation by taking that one phrase out of context; one can take this phrase out of its context and dogmatically affirm: "There is no God."
The hermeneutic is the same. The logic is the same. The same method of studying the Bible is used. You can't argue against it.

 

[BobRyan]

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

Here Paul addresses the issue of Jewish Christian vs Gentile Christian
He also addresses the issue of Christian slave vs Christian free-man.

What is interesting is that Paul is not saying that "marriage is slavery" or that "marriage is for both circumcised and uncircumcised". He is addressing the state in which a person comes to Christ - married, or Jew or Gentile, or slave or free.

But in so doing - Paul just so happens to provide a happy comparison between "Keeping the Commandments of God" and the ritual+ceremonial issues such as circumcision. Instead of leaping off the cliff of arguing that the "Commandments of God" are no longer valid since circumcision is not a salvation issue - Paul argues that the Commandments of God REMAIN valid EVEN though circumcision and other ceremonial issues are ended at the cross.

(The above is the 'easy part' visible to the serious bible student - the objective unbiased reader)


In my efforts to find something that DHK says - that actually holds water when it comes to the Word of God - We notice this in 1Cor 7

1 Corinthians 7:20 Let each man stay in that calling in which he was called.

--Whether Jew or Gentile; slave or free; rich or poor; etc. each man was to stay in that calling in which he was called. They were one in Christ.

That much of DHK's statement does apply directly to the text and actually works.


19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Thus Paul de-emphasizes the law. He puts no value on circumcision at all. It is not important. As Christians we don't have to keep it.

And we have yet another instructive moment by way of contrast - with DHK's position.

Rom 3
31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.



The fact that DHK's response then goes directly at the text of scripture in 1Cor 7 by directly opposing it - is "instructive" to the unbiased objective reader and far more transparent to the Bible student than DHK seem to have at first imagined.

:godisgood:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I merely point out that the Jer 31:32 text is "consistent" in upholding the Law of God - with what Paul says in 1Cor 7:19 about our keeping the Commandments of God and if you care to read this part of scripture - Rom 3:31 points to the "Law of God" being "established" by our faith - our faith under the New Covenant - our faith under the ONE Gospel of Gal 1:6-11 Is this your "There is no God" hermeneutic again?

Hebrews 8
1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.

3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.
4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;
5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "" SEE,'' He says, ""THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.''


Then Paul shows the Jer 31:32 “New Covenant” to include the basic Gospel components

• Forgiveness of sin
• Adoption by God
• The New Birth – the New Creation

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

8 For finding fault with them, He says, "" BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
9 NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10 "" FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: [b]I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11 "" AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, "KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME[/b], FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12 "" FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.''


However DHK seems to have an endless tendency to go directly against the scripture when it comes to this subject - so let us hear from DHK.

Is this your "There is no God" hermeneutic again?
Jeremiah 31:32 is not the gospel, and has nothing to do with the gospel.
The law has nothing to do with the gospel.

How sad.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

In your above post if you would stick to the context of 1Cor.7--marriage--instead of bringing other Scripture dealing with OT law, then you would see how your post does not make sense. As I said you cannot squeeze the entire Pentateuch into one phrase of one verse. That is the ultimate in extreme eisigeses which you are partaking in.
Paul is not writing about the law; not one verse does he refer to the law.
He is writing about marriage. But you force SDA theology into this chapter even when it is not speaking about it.