NT Establishing the OT

[DHK]

Of course as Paul points out in Romans 8:6-8 the lost will always complain that they cannot keep the Law of God.

[FONT=&quot]Rom 8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

I never dispute that point that Paul makes in Romans 8.

You never answer the obvious and inevitable questions that arise out of it either.
Are you able to keep all the law?
Since those who do not keep the law are acting in the flesh, are you not in the flesh?
Since you are in the flesh are you not in the category of those "cannot please God."

Are you subject to the Law of God, all the time?
Do you keep it all the time?
Or is this just a game of hypocrisy that you play.

Why do you avoid these questions.

 

[BobRyan]

I may have erred in not posting this statement often enough.

Hopefully all can agree to reject the nonsense suggestion that we should only quote and affirm those portions of scripture that are "easy to take" and reject quoting and affirming any scripture that is difficult, challenging, not tickling to the ears.

I know this is incredibly obvious to all - but at times the obvious simply has to be stated.

Or possibly I could have been in err by not reminding everyone (often enough) that when you inform a Catholic that the "2nd commandment matters" the nonsensical response "yes but I can ignore it until all protestants are sinless" is pretty much rejected out of hand by actual Bible students.

Be that as it may -

According to Paul the saints are able to keep the Law of God (See Romans 6 and Romans 8) and the lost are not.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Of course as Paul points out in Romans 8:6-8 the lost will always complain that they cannot keep the Law of God.

[FONT=&quot]Rom 8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

I never dispute that point that Paul makes in Romans 8.


God's purpose of the saints is that they have the "Law of God written on the heart and mind" Heb 8 -- just as we were told in Jeremiah 31:31-33. God calls us to obedience - He is not calling us to "sanctified rebellion" against what Christ called "The WORD of God" in Mark 7:6-13. In Mark 7 and in Matt 5 Christ condemned the idea of Bible teachers - teaching others to ignore the Law of God.

John makes the same point in 1John 3 even saying in 1 John 2:1 "These things I write to you that you sin not"

And in 1cor 10 Paul is in agreement "NO temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man - and God is faithful who will not ALLOW you to be tempted beyond that which YOU ARE ABLE - but will with the temptation provide the way of escape".

Sanctified rebellion against God is not condoned in scripture. Repentance, Confession and the sanctified walk of Romans 8 - is condoned.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

I may have erred in not posting this statement often enough.



Or possibly I could have been in err by not reminding everyone (often enough) that when you inform a Catholic that the "2nd commandment matters" the nonsensical response "yes but I can ignore it until all protestants are sinless" is pretty much rejected out of hand by actual Bible students.

Be that as it may -

According to Paul the saints are able to keep the Law of God (See Romans 6 and Romans 8) and the lost are not.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Of course as Paul points out in Romans 8:6-8 the lost will always complain that they cannot keep the Law of God.

[FONT=&quot]Rom 8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

I never dispute that point that Paul makes in Romans 8.


God's purpose of the saints is that they have the "Law of God written on the heart and mind" Heb 8 -- just as we were told in Jeremiah 31:31-33. God calls us to obedience - He is not calling us to "sanctified rebellion" against what Christ called "The WORD of God" in Mark 7:6-13. In Mark 7 and in Matt 5 Christ condemned the idea of Bible teachers - teaching others to ignore the Law of God.

John makes the same point in 1John 3 even saying in 1 John 2:1 "These things I write to you that you sin not"

And in 1cor 10 Paul is in agreement "NO temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man - and God is faithful who will not ALLOW you to be tempted beyond that which YOU ARE ABLE - but will with the temptation provide the way of escape".

Sanctified rebellion against God is not condoned in scripture. Repentance, Confession and the sanctified walk of Romans 8 - is condoned.


in Christ,

Bob

If you believe what you post here, then answer the questions I have asked you. Why are you so hesitant?

 

[BobRyan]

I prefer to stick with the Bible - so that way - no gaming.

 

[DHK]

I prefer to stick with the Bible - so that way - no gaming.

If the Scripture is not applicable to us it is of no value at all. God gave us the Scripture to apply to our own lives. It is not a game. Don't down play and demean the scriptures as such. Answer the questions. Apply the Scriptures that you post to yourself, otherwise this debate goes nowhere and you remain a debate.

You are like the faith healer that claims he can heal but won't demonstrate it. Back up your claims. Answer the questions.

 

[steaver]

If the Scripture is not applicable to us it is of no value at all. God gave us the Scripture to apply to our own lives. It is not a game. Don't down play and demean the scriptures as such. Answer the questions. Apply the Scriptures that you post to yourself, otherwise this debate goes nowhere and you remain a debate.

You are like the faith healer that claims he can heal but won't demonstrate it. Back up your claims. Answer the questions.

I always get a kick out of the JW's I talk with and I ask them "do you keep God's commandments?" They will say "Oh yes!" And then I will say "then your sinless" And they will say "Oh no!".

Well which is it??? I don't think they understand that sin is transgression of the Law.

 

[BobRyan]

So since this thread is about dispensationalism and no one claims that dispensationalists are JW's - back on track.

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

[FONT=&quot]Acts 21:17-24 – a discussion that cannot even happen in dispensationalism.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (unless Romans 14 includes ceremonial days.)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]============================

Now if we redo that Acts 21 scenario in a dispensation-compatible form it goes something like this --


In Acts 21 the entire idea that the OT ceremonial law is dead - was brought up.

Acts 21
17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Addition for the sake of dispensationalism:
And then saith Paul to them "verily the accusation they are making is every bit correct. That is exactly what I am doing. Telling both Jews and Gentiles that the entire OT system of laws is no longer valid and the commandments and laws that we have today - are only that which we Apostles tell you as a commandment from Christ". Thus I will not do anything as if to disprove this charge - rather I gladly affirm it and more than this - I am more than a little confused that the Christian church leadership in Jerusalem had not been informed of this change in the new dispensation".

=======end of Dispensationalist scenario

In other words - the Acts 21 scenario as written in scripture - cannot even exist if the dispensationalist model of what was coming out of the Apostolic church in Jerusalem after Pentecost is even remotely correct.

I don't see any way around this.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]======================================[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Eph 6 – proof that Ten Commandments are being quoted in NT as the unit of law for NT saints. It is the ONLY full quote of the 5th commandment in the entire NT.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1Cor 7:19 – contrasts ceremonial law to Moral law.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Baptist Confession of Faith”, “Westminster Confession of Faith”, D.L. Moody, Thomas Watson, R.C. Sproul, Andy Stanley, C.H. Spurgeon and many others agree with the binding nature of the TEN Commandments on all Christians from Adam to this very day.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]
In Acts 21 the entire idea that the OT ceremonial law is dead - was brought up.

Acts 21
17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law


My question for you - is how this Acts 21 could have been agreed to by Paul given your opening statement above. Acts 21:17-23 should not even exist!

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The only way it can exist is if the Scriptures of the NT are in fact the OT text as we see in Acts 17:11 and in Eph 6:1-4. Called the “Word of God” by Christ in Mark 7:13. The only way it can exist is if there is some optional statement about the ceremonial feast days as in Rom 14 where “one observes one day above another” in that Lev 23 list and another man “observes every day” in that Lev 23 list.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Christ gives the commandments in John 15:12 as a form of the Lev 19:18 Commandment expanded – and then Paul in the Apostolic letter to Romans give the exact quote of Lev 19:18 in Romans 13. Christ mentions the exact shortened form of the 5th commandment in Mark 7 but then Paul in Ephesians 6 gives the verbatim FULL quote of of the 5th commandment.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In Mal 3 God says "I do not change" in Heb 13 Paul says "Jesus is the SAME yesterday today and forever"


[/FONT]

 

[NetChaplain]

Hi Bob - AS for me, I use the term dispensation to mean certain times of dispensing, i.e. that which God dispensed in the OT and that which is in the NT.

What Paul did in Acts 21 relates to 1 Cor 9:20. He knew he was not under the law but performed the custom in order to gain favor of the saved Jews who thought they were still under the law, because they were still unfamiliar with the new dispensation Paul was sharing with them.

"I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law."

The phrase "as under the law" indicates the absence of the former requirement of the Law for Israelites.

 

[BobRyan]

In Acts 21 Paul is being accused of something. And I am wondering if the dispensational model is in fact making that very claim about Paul.

In Acts 21 Paul goes out of his way to refute the accusation. So once we see what the accusation is according to the text - we can see what he was refuting.


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

Acts 21

[FONT=&quot]Acts 21
17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law[/FONT].

The accusation: [FONT=&quot]21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

The counter claim by the Apostolic church in Jerusalem after Pentecost:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law[/FONT].

The method that would PROVE the counter claim to be correct and the accusation to be false:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads[/FONT]

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

So then this is NOT a case of Paul's position being "ignore everything in the OT except the TEN Commandments" because the actions above affirm much more than just the TEN Commandments.

This is a specific case of the ceremonial law - taking a vow in the temple etc.

They are claiming that the OT concept of "THE LAW" is being upheld by Paul - even if not manditory - at least in true Romans 14 fashion - valid for observation.

This is not even possible in the classic dispensationalist model - as we might both agree.

The point is that in Acts 21 Paul is going far beyond quoting one of the TEN Commandments verbatim (as he does in Eph 6) and claiming it is still binding on Christians.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

If the Scripture is not applicable to us it is of no value at all. God gave us the Scripture to apply to our own lives. It is not a game. Don't down play and demean the scriptures as such. Answer the questions. Apply the Scriptures that you post to yourself, otherwise this debate goes nowhere and you remain a debate.

You are like the faith healer that claims he can heal but won't demonstrate it. Back up your claims. Answer the questions.

Are you subject to the Law of God, all the time?
Do you keep it all the time?
Or is this just a game of hypocrisy that you play.

Why do you avoid these questions.

Still waiting for answers.

 

[BobRyan]

You appear to be waiting for this answer.

I may have erred in not posting this statement often enough.



Or possibly I could have been in err by not reminding everyone (often enough) that when you inform a Catholic that the "2nd commandment matters" the nonsensical response "yes but I can ignore it until all protestants are sinless" is pretty much rejected out of hand by actual Bible students.

Be that as it may -

According to Paul the saints are able to keep the Law of God (See Romans 6 and Romans 8) and the lost are not.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Of course as Paul points out in Romans 8:6-8 the lost will always complain that they cannot keep the Law of God.

[FONT=&quot]Rom 8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

I never dispute that point that Paul makes in Romans 8.


God's purpose of the saints is that they have the "Law of God written on the heart and mind" Heb 8 -- just as we were told in Jeremiah 31:31-33. God calls us to obedience - He is not calling us to "sanctified rebellion" against what Christ called "The WORD of God" in Mark 7:6-13. In Mark 7 and in Matt 5 Christ condemned the idea of Bible teachers - teaching others to ignore the Law of God.

John makes the same point in 1John 3 even saying in 1 John 2:1 "These things I write to you that you sin not"

And in 1cor 10 Paul is in agreement "NO temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man - and God is faithful who will not ALLOW you to be tempted beyond that which YOU ARE ABLE - but will with the temptation provide the way of escape".

Sanctified rebellion against God is not condoned in scripture. Repentance, Confession and the sanctified walk of Romans 8 - is condoned.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gup20]

Gal 3:16
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.
17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.
21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.​

From what I see in scripture, Salvation is by faith alone without works (Rom 4:5). Abraham was made righteous by his faith in the gospel of Christ(Gal 3:6-9) prior to being circumcised (Rom 4:9-10), and 430 years before The Law was even given to Moses. This means that righteousness by faith is completely independent of The Law. The Law has nothing to do with imparting righteousness to the believer (salvation). The passage above says that The Law, when it came 430 years after Abraham's salvation by faith in the gospel, did not modify the covenant of faith that God had already ratified, nor did it add any conditions to the covenant of salvation by faith.

The purpose of The Law is to teach us that we cannot be saved by our works because we have been altogether disqualified if we have committed even a single sin. James 2:10 says that if you are trying to keep The Law, you have to perfectly keep the whole law, and if you stumble at even one point, you have broken the entirety of The Law. Think of it this way - if I never committed a single crime for my whole life, except for that one murder, would my "goodness" be a consideration of the judge and jury in my trial or would the law demand that I spend years of my life in prison for the one crime that I did commit? God's penalty for sin is death. If you have committed even one sin, you must die for that one sin. Being good the rest of the time doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility to pay the penalty for the one sin. So, for those who are sinners and have committed at least one sin, they are dead to The Law. They can no longer rely upon it for justification because they are guilty of transgressing it and must pay the specified penalty - death - regardless of how good they are after committing the one sin.

What God did with Abraham is He preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to him, and when Abraham believed the gospel, God gave him righteousness (the substituted righteousness of Christ), and promised that righteousness would be an everlasting covenant that would be inherited by all of Abraham's descendants (Gen 17:7). God changed Abram's name to Abraham when he made this covenant and called him the "father of many nations" because Abraham was the first believer, and those who believed in the gospel the same as Abraham believed would be his spiritual descendants, and heirs of the righteousness that Christ gave up on the cross and God gave to Abraham.

Gal 3:6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.”
9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.​

Christ fulfilled the law so that we didn't have to. In fact, no one has ever done it besides Christ. Our salvation is not through The Law or through keeping The Law, but it is an inheritance we receive as children of Abraham and heirs of the everlasting promise God made to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the righteousness given to him for his faith in the gospel.

 

[DHK]

You appear to be waiting for this answer.

Nowhere in your quote do you answer these simple questions:

Are you subject to the Law of God, all the time?
Do you keep it all the time?
Or is this just a game of hypocrisy that you play.

Why do you avoid these questions.

Bob, the nature of these questions require the first person singular.
If you use Scripture you must apply it to yourself. That is how Scripture is to be used, otherwise it is of no value. The Ethiopian eunuch was saved because the Scripture that Philip used was made personally applicable to the eunuch. You need to do the same thing.
The subject here is the law. Does the law apply to you? How?
In the scripture you quote: "are YOU subject to the law of God all the time?"
You quoted the Scripture. Now answer the questions that arise from the scripture that you quoted.

 

[NetChaplain]

In Acts 21 Paul is being accused of something. And I am wondering if the dispensational model is in fact making that very claim about Paul.

In Acts 21 Paul goes out of his way to refute the accusation. So once we see what the accusation is according to the text - we can see what he was refuting.


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

Acts 21

[FONT=&quot]Acts 21
17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law[/FONT].

The accusation: [FONT=&quot]21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

The accusation is that Paul was teaching the passing of the Law but the believing Jews wanted him to deny this and participate with the men in the custom of the Law, so the other believing Jews who heard of Paul's new teaching would accept him and those they sent him with in an attempt to confirm the continuance of the Law, to mix it with Christianity.

Paul agreed to comply with the custom of purification in order to have a chance to teach them the Law was no longer necessary, nor accepted by God, because the only acceptance was now in His Son.

Judaism and Christianity cannot be mixed (Judeo-Christianity is not a true practice), and Judaism (Law keeping) is no longer acceptable, only Christ and those who are His.

 

[BobRyan]

The accusation is that Paul was teaching the passing of the Law but the believing Jews wanted him to deny this and participate with the men in the custom of the Law, so the other believing Jews who heard of Paul's new teaching would accept him and those they sent him with in an attempt to confirm the continuance of the Law, to mix it with Christianity.

Paul agreed to comply with the custom of purification in order to have a chance to teach them the Law was no longer necessary, nor accepted by God, .

The text says the Christian Jews in Jerusalem (the post Pentecost - Apostolic Jerusalem church) are accusing Paul of teaching that "the Law was no longer necessary, nor accepted by God,".

They are asking that Paul refute that accusation by participating in the Ceremonial act of taking a vow and paying for others to do so with him. Thus proving by example that the charges were false that he was teaching no such thing.

(Note they do not ask him to refute the charge by honoring his Father and Mother or by not coveting etc).



1. The accusation: [FONT=&quot]21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

2. The counter claim by the Apostolic church in Jerusalem after Pentecost: [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law[/FONT].

3. The method that would PROVE the counter claim to be correct and the accusation to be false:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]vs 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads[/FONT]

In your post you appear to prefer that they were asking Paul not to refute the charges but rather find some way to get the Christian Jews to think of those charges as "a good thing" because after all "the Law was no longer necessary, nor accepted by God," is "the message". No sense in working to refute the message.

However when you look at the text it says that they are seeking to "prove" that there is "nothing at all" by way of "substance" to the charge - the very charge the sensationalist view would be affirming -- not disproving.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christ fulfilled the law so that we didn't have to. In fact, no one has ever done it besides Christ. Our salvation is not through The Law or through keeping The Law, but it is an inheritance we receive as children of Abraham and heirs of the everlasting promise God made to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the righteousness given to him for his faith in the gospel.

Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 just as John insists in 1John 5:1-4. Christ Himself insists on it in John 14:15 when He quotes Ex 20:5 "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments" right out of the Ten Commandments.

This is not "keeping the commandments so the lost can earn salvation" because no amount of keeping the Commandments of God will make up for sinning. And all have sinned.

As Paul points out in Romans 8:6-8 the lost cannot keep the Law of God - but the saints do walk in obedience to it "by the Spirit putting to death the deeds of the flesh" Romans 8.

The lost cannot do that. But the saints can because as Paul reminds us in Hebrews 8 the New Covenant "writes the Law on the heart and on the mind" just as Jeremiah 31:31-33 stated.


In Romans 2:13-16 Paul makes it clear that "it is not the hearers of the Law that are just before God - but the doers of the LAW WILL be justified...on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[NetChaplain]

The text says the Christian Jews in Jerusalem (the post Pentecost - Apostolic Jerusalem church) are accusing Paul of teaching that "the Law was no longer necessary, nor accepted by God,".

They are asking that Paul refute that accusation by participating in the Ceremonial act of taking a vow and paying for others to do so with him. Thus proving by example that the charges were false that he was teaching no such thing.

In your post you appear to prefer that they were asking Paul not to refute the charges but rather find some way to get the Christian Jews to think of those charges as "a good thing" because after all "the Law was no longer necessary, nor accepted by God," is "the message". No sense in working to refute the message.

However when you look at the text it says that they are seeking to "prove" that there is "nothing at all" by way of "substance" to the charge - the very charge the sensationalist view would be affirming -- not disproving.

My comprehension is that the Jews wanted him to deny to the others that his teachings concerning the law were not true, but what Paul was teaching was true. And to continue to retain access to the Jews, and not offend them, he complied with the law's purification custom, so he could have more time with them to share Christ and His teachings.

Paul's compliance with the law at this time was not out of order because the passing of the law would not be completed until the Lord's ascension and the giving of the Spirit (John 7:39).

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" (1 Cor 9:20). "As a Jew" and "as under the law,"--as under, but not truly under. "He taketh away the first (covenant), that he may establish the second (covenant--Heb 10:9)."

I think that regardless of our interpretation of Acts 21, chapter 24 starts revealing what Paul has been desiring to share with the Jews all along, concerning Christianity, which was that there cannot be an admixture of Christianity and Judaism.

In chapter 24:14 he speaks of "the Way," which was known as Christianity, and all that he believed concerning what the law and profits said concerning the coming Messiah.

Verse 18: "Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult."--Paul, for the sake of not offending, performed the purification custom of the law so that he can gain access to the temple to share about Jesus with the Jews.

Verse 25: "And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance."--that these are only in Christ.

Bob, how do you use the quote option to dissect and address the replies?

 

[Gup20]

Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 just as John insists in 1John 5:1-4. Christ Himself insists on it in John 14:15 when He quotes Ex 20:5 "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments" right out of the Ten Commandments.

This is not "keeping the commandments so the lost can earn salvation" because no amount of keeping the Commandments of God will make up for sinning. And all have sinned.

As Paul points out in Romans 8:6-8 the lost cannot keep the Law of God - but the saints do walk in obedience to it "by the Spirit putting to death the deeds of the flesh" Romans 8.

The lost cannot do that. But the saints can because as Paul reminds us in Hebrews 8 the New Covenant "writes the Law on the heart and on the mind" just as Jeremiah 31:31-33 stated.


In Romans 2:13-16 Paul makes it clear that "it is not the hearers of the Law that are just before God - but the doers of the LAW WILL be justified...on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge".

in Christ,

Bob

You seem to make contradictory statements. On the one hand you say the lost cannot be saved by keeping the law, but on the other hand you say that the saved CAN be unsaved by not keeping the law.

Your error comes in the notion that keeping the law is a medium whereby one can transact salvation.

Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?​

Paul makes the point that, since they didn't attain their salvation through works of the law, they can't perfect (or for the sake of our discussion, imperfect -- they cannot modify, change, or condition their salvation by) their salvation by works of the law because their salvation (which is the acquisition of righteousness) has no basis in works of the law.

Works of the law and following the commandments become important for the advancing, mature Christian as they learn to abide in Christ, and do His will and His work. John says that following the commandments and law is loving God. It is an advanced relationship skill with God meant for the believer who wishes to grow deeper and do God's will and work.

Jhn 15:9 “Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.
10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
11 “These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.​

There is a purpose in following the commandments and keeping the law, but it has nothing to do with salvation or righteousness. It has to do with being a productive participant in your relationship with God. It has to do with the fruit of the spirit being manifest in your life.

You can't lose your salvation by not following the law. Committing even one sin in your life shuts the door to that path to righteousness forever. Your salvation is attained through faith, so the only way to lose it again would be to lose your faith. But note:

Rom 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

Rom 8:10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.​

Think about it BobRyan -- your body will never see redemption. God has condemned your flesh to die for your sin. Even for the Christian, this is true. The Law demands a death for sin, and your flesh will die, and will never be redeemed, justified, or saved. Christ died to make your SPIRIT righteous. It is this spirit man who lives even after the death of the body.

1Cr 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.​

So tell me... since our flesh is condemned, and the sin of our spirit has been exiled to our flesh, and our flesh will never see redemption, and our spirit is made righteous by the righteousness of Christ as an inheritance through our faith ... it begs the question ... what deed of our flesh can overcome God's grace? What work borne of condemned, sinful, already dead flesh can make you even deader? Our flesh and spirit have become separated. If the salvation of the spirit doesn't effect the flesh, and the death that remains in our unredeemable flesh cannot overcome the righteousness we've obtained by our faith in the gospel, then how can you say that if one does not keep the commandments they will lose their salvation?

Surely this is true prior to being born again. But once your spirit has been made alive in Christ by faith, then only by a loss of your faith can you lose that salvation.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 just as John insists in 1John 5:1-4. Christ Himself insists on it in John 14:15 when He quotes Ex 20:5 "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments" right out of the Ten Commandments.

This is not "keeping the commandments so the lost can earn salvation" because no amount of keeping the Commandments of God will make up for sinning. And all have sinned.

As Paul points out in Romans 8:6-8 the lost cannot keep the Law of God - but the saints do walk in obedience to it "by the Spirit putting to death the deeds of the flesh" Romans 8.

The lost cannot do that. But the saints can because as Paul reminds us in Hebrews 8 the New Covenant "writes the Law on the heart and on the mind" just as Jeremiah 31:31-33 stated.


In Romans 2:13-16 Paul makes it clear that "it is not the hearers of the Law that are just before God - but the doers of the LAW WILL be justified...on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge".

You seem to make contradictory statements. On the one hand you say the lost cannot be saved by keeping the law, but on the other hand you say that the saved CAN be unsaved by not keeping the law.

Turns out that is the way all of life works.

God "gave" Adam and Eve a perfect home, perfect health, joy, and paradise -- day 1. They had done nothing to "earn it". Yet losing it all could be done by simply living in rebellion against God. Same goes for Israel - God chose them -- and then they chose rebellion against God.

Your neighbor cannot earn the right to have you put him in your will for 10,000$ payout on your death simply by always being nice to you when he sees you at the mail box. Being nice now and then does not earn 10,000$.

But HE CAN get you to take him of your will if he chooses to insult you every day that he sees you.

The young adult does not "EARN" the right to live in his/her parents home while going to college by "by not robbing a bank" - but when they do rob a bank - they will be living "in jail" instead of at their parent's home.

The Murderer in Prison does not "earn the right to walk away" by being nice to fellow inmates and government officials... but if he is given a pardon and then starts to break the law - robbing banks etc - he will be put in jail for it.

All of life works this way - and so there is nothing at all contradictory when God says that He gives salvation as a free gift - yet when someone chooses to openly choose rebellion against the Word of God -- well then the Matt 18 "Forgiveness revoked" rule is put into action -- as it is in Matt 6 and in Ezek 18 and in Romans 11 and in ...

John in 1John 5:1-4 describes the saved saints - (I notice you are not going near that text) and so also does Paul in Romans 6... He does not say that this is how the lost "become saved". In 1John 2 John says that the one who "Claims" to be saved and yet is walking in rebellion against the Commandments of God, is not telling the truth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 3?
Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

All of the above works are consistent in that they show the law as pointing to man as a sinner that needs a Savior. The purpose of the Law is to show that man cannot keep it; he needs a Savior.

Romans 3 "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! IN fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31

The NEW Covenant with the Jer 31:31-33 LAW of God -- written on the heart and mind according to Hebrews 8.