Is it okay to eat pork?

[GracePeace]

Okay. Did he subsequently teach that being dead to the law, Christians were therefore justified in disobeying it?

He said those who walk after the spirit, who serve not after the oldness of the letter but in newness of the Spirit of Grace ("serve one another by faith"), fulfill the Law's "righteous requirement" (not all of it is required--eg, Jesus called making and keeping of vows "of the evil one" Mt 5, and denounced Torah's "any cause" divorce Mt 19), and when we walk in faith, we bear the fruit of the Spirit against which there is no Law (such are not breaking but keeping the Law).

Gentiles were never required to keep certain laws that were meant for Jews, so the most you could argue is Jewish believers are required to keep dietary laws, but there is plenty of doctrine to disprove that.

 

[GracePeace]

Requirement for dietary restrictions, getting circumcised, Saturday sabbath, etc were all given under the Law of Moses so each are related and relevant.

The question is and what was addressed at the Counsel of Jerusalem was are Christians required to keep the Law of Moses to be saved which is what the judaizers were claiming prompting the Apostles to have a big meeting to address this claim.

Acts 15:1,5
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.






God's Word teaches the old covenant has been taken away and the Lord established the NEW covenant

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

God's Word teaches that Christians are NOT following Moses as their high priest because now we have a NEW High Priest Who is Jesus Christ?

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

We are noe under the Law of Christ, not the law of Moses
See Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, James 2:12, James 1:25, Romans 8:2

What I know (and @TonyChanYT can tell us if he feels the same here) is when I make a post I am frustrated when I see people not staying on topic.

 

[Brakelite]

Well, it does address one of them: we're not under the Law! LOL

Paul wrote about the lifestyle practises and habits of those who were under the law...
KJV Galatians 5:18-23
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

First, those not under the law were walking and being led by the Spirit of God. Second, where is it listed in any of the above texts that those who were under the law, and walking according to the flesh, that they were obeying the law? How can obedience to the law be accomplished without the holy Spirit?
Sometimes I wonder if those who oppose obedience actually read any scriptures that contradicts their faulty conclusions...
KJV Romans 8:3-9
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

What is popularly quoted from Galatians, is confirmed by what Paul wrote in Romans. He is talking about the same thing. And what He isn't saying is Christians are now free to disobey the law. I'm fact the opposite. Those who walk in the spirit walk and live in the righteousness of the law. If your lifestyle and worldview and practise is contrary to the law, you are not walking in the Spirit. That's what Paul is saying.

 

[GracePeace]

Paul wrote about the lifestyle practises and habits of those who were under the law...
KJV Galatians 5:18-23
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

First, those not under the law were walking and being led by the Spirit of God. Second, where is it listed in any of the above texts that those who were under the law, and walking according to the flesh, that they were obeying the law? How can obedience to the law be accomplished without the holy Spirit?
Sometimes I wonder if those who oppose obedience actually read any scriptures that contradicts their faulty conclusions...
KJV Romans 8:3-9
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

What is popularly quoted from Galatians, is confirmed by what Paul wrote in Romans. He is talking about the same thing. And what He isn't saying is Christians are now free to disobey the law. I'm fact the opposite. Those who walk in the spirit walk and live in the righteousness of the law. If your lifestyle and worldview and practise is contrary to the law, you are not walking in the Spirit. That's what Paul is saying.

You don't read my answers, so I am on the verge of not continuing in conversation, as it is vain--I said those who walk after the Spirit fulfill the "righteous requirement of the Law".

 

[GracePeace]

Paul wrote about the lifestyle practises and habits of those who were under the law...
KJV Galatians 5:18-23
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

First, those not under the law were walking and being led by the Spirit of God. Second, where is it listed in any of the above texts that those who were under the law, and walking according to the flesh, that they were obeying the law? How can obedience to the law be accomplished without the holy Spirit?
Sometimes I wonder if those who oppose obedience actually read any scriptures that contradicts their faulty conclusions...
KJV Romans 8:3-9
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

What is popularly quoted from Galatians, is confirmed by what Paul wrote in Romans. He is talking about the same thing. And what He isn't saying is Christians are now free to disobey the law. I'm fact the opposite. Those who walk in the spirit walk and live in the righteousness of the law. If your lifestyle and worldview and practise is contrary to the law, you are not walking in the Spirit. That's what Paul is saying.

No, actually...

Romans 14
14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Paul teaches that each one's personal conviction is the Law of God they are to live by--for Paul, his conviction from and before the Lord is that no food is "unclean", but he allows that another person may have a conviction that a certain food is unclean. The same for observance of certain days--one person, before and as unto the Lord, does not observe it, whereas the next person observes it.

The "one law for the native and the foreigner" is "faith", and when we walk in our Holy Spirit authored convictions before and as unto the Lord, we remain in Christ (1 Jn 3:23,24) revealing God's righteousness (Ro 1:17, 14:5, 23) not our own from the Law (Php 3:9).

 

[Brakelite]

Requirement for dietary restrictions, getting circumcised, Saturday sabbath, etc were all given under the Law of Moses so each are related and relevant.

The question is and what was addressed at the Counsel of Jerusalem was are Christians required to keep the Law of Moses to be saved which is what the judaizers were claiming prompting the Apostles to have a big meeting to address this claim.

Acts 15:1,5
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.






God's Word teaches the old covenant has been taken away and the Lord established the NEW covenant

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

God's Word teaches that Christians are NOT following Moses as their high priest because now we have a NEW High Priest Who is Jesus Christ?

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

We are noe under the Law of Christ, not the law of Moses
See Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, James 2:12, James 1:25, Romans 8:2

You didn't answer the question, so I'll repeat it.
Did he (Paul) subsequently teach that being dead to the law, Christians were therefore justified in disobeying it? I'm talking about the ten commandments here, seeing we've diverted the conversation somewhat to Sabbath keeping.

 

[GracePeace]

If your lifestyle and worldview and practise is contrary to the law, you are not walking in the Spirit. That's what Paul is saying.

How did the Gentile believers qualify as "doers of the Law" without even knowing the Law (Ro 2:13-16, 26, 27) if your interpretation of Scripture is correct ?

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

You didn't answer the question, so I'll repeat it.
Did he (Paul) subsequently teach that being dead to the law, Christians were therefore justified in disobeying it? I'm talking about the ten commandments here, seeing we've diverted the conversation somewhat to Sabbath keeping.

I answered the question... you can go back and read about how the old covenant has been taken away so the Lord could establish the new covenant.

Your question was faulty. Would you like to try another?

 

[Brakelite]

He said those who walk after the spirit, who serve not after the oldness of the letter but in newness of the Spirit of Grace ("serve one another by faith"), fulfill the Law's "righteous requirement" (not all of it is required--eg, Jesus called making and keeping of vows "of the evil one" Mt 5, and denounced Torah's "any cause" divorce Mt 19), and when we walk in faith, we bear the fruit of the Spirit against which there is no Law (such are not breaking but keeping the Law).

Gentiles were never required to keep certain laws that were meant for Jews, so the most you could argue is Jewish believers are required to keep dietary laws, but there is plenty of doctrine to disprove that.

I guess gentile pigs are clean and safe to eat but not Jewish pigs. Have the medical authorities and marketing folk been informed of this?

 

[GracePeace]

I guess gentile pigs are clean and safe to eat but not Jewish pigs. Have the medical authorities and marketing folk been informed of this?

So, what I said stands unaddressed.
Jesus Himself did away with parts of the Law.
Your issue is with Jesus--of course, also with Paul.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I guess gentile pigs are clean and safe to eat but not Jewish pigs. Have the medical authorities and marketing folk been informed of this?

I didn't know pigs were religious?

 

[GracePeace]

I guess gentile pigs are clean and safe to eat but not Jewish pigs. Have the medical authorities and marketing folk been informed of this?

In the few interactions we've had, I have found you to be a dishonest person--I would not even continue with you, except that addressing your dishonesty will provide opportunities for others to learn.

 

[TonyChanYT]

What I know (and @TonyChanYT can tell us if he feels the same here) is when I make a post I am frustrated when I see people not staying on topic.

I don't get frustrated often After 3 attempts to try to refocus the other person, I may put him on ignore.

 

[GracePeace]

I don't get frustrated often After 3 attempts to try to refocus the other person, I may put him on ignore.

So, similar to myself, it seems, you want people to stick to the topic.

 

[BarneyFife]

So you don't think those who do NOT keep Saturday sabbath . . . are going to hell then?

The dietary restrictions were given under the Law of Moses just like Saturday sabbath was.

Just asking for a friend!

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Gentiles were never required to keep certain laws that were meant for Jews, so the most you could argue is Jewish believers are required to keep dietary laws, but there is plenty of doctrine to disprove that.

You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 24:22)

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. (Titus 3:9)

Of course, I realize the corner I've backed myself into here, but I don't believe the text means that law should never be discussed. But it certainly suggests that there are certain hazards involved, one of which is overconfidence. Law can be complicated and requires many years of study to become proficient at the professional level. We amateurs often make off-hand pronouncements about divine law that are easily refuted.

And I still owe you that follow-up question.

(I'm stalling. )

.

 

[GracePeace]

You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 24:22)

I actually recently addressed this Law: the "same law for the foreigner and the native-born" is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" (Ro 14:5), so that "anything that is not of faith is sin" (Ro 14:23), because "God's righteousness [not our own from the Law Php 3:9] is revealed from faith to faith" (Ro 1:17); this "one law" has different results depending on the person (Romans 14).

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. (Titus 3:9)

Of course, I realize the corner I've backed myself into here, but I don't believe the text means that law should never be discussed. But it certainly suggests that there are certain hazards involved, one of which is overconfidence. Law can be complicated and requires many years of study to become proficient at the professional level. We amateurs often make off-hand pronouncements about divine law that are easily refuted.

Indeed.

And I still owe you that follow-up question.

(I'm stalling. )

.

I await your response.

 

[BarneyFife]

I actually recently addressed this Law: the "same law for the foreigner and the native-born" is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" (Ro 14:5), so that "anything that is not of faith is sin" (Ro 14:23), because "God's righteousness [not our own from the Law Php 3:9] is revealed from faith to faith" (Ro 1:17); this "one law" has different results depending on the person (Romans 14).

To be honest, either this explanation is over my head or I don't think we're going to profit much from a discussion about the law as this seems rather a liberal view of law to me—actually more akin to what I might call "legal pluralism," at best. I confess it's shocking from the perspective of a Southern Baptist-raised baby boomer like me. Sometimes I really feel like a fossil.

God bless you, GP

What's your favorite Kubrick film?

.

 

[GracePeace]

To be honest, either this explanation is over my head or I don't think we're going to profit much from a discussion about the law as this seems rather a liberal view of law to me—actually more akin to what I might call "legal pluralism," at best. I confess it's shocking from the perspective of a Southern Baptist-raised baby boomer like me. Sometimes I really feel like a fossil.

God bless you, GP

.

Number 1 : the Law isn't even entirely in force according to Christ, because He denounces some of its Laws (eg, making and keeping vows, permitted under Torah, He calls "of the evil one" Mt 5, and "any cause" divorce is revealed as having been a mere concession, not God's actual delight Mt 19).

Number 2: the fulfillment of the Law "one law for the native born and the foreigner" is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind", otherwise, "anything that is not of faith is sin" (after having already described men of differing views, but each walking according to his own conviction before the Lord) would have no force or meaning. Recognize that GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS is revealed from faith to faith (Ro 1:17, 14:5, 23), whereas it seems you are demanding that we go to the Law to reveal our own righteousness. When we walk by faith, walk in the spirit, we bear the fruit of the Spirit, against which things "there is no Law"--we need to concern ourselves with walking in the spirit ("if we live in the spirit let us also walk in the spirit"), walking in faith, therefore, because "he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law", and love is a fruit of the spirit.

 

[GracePeace]

To be honest, either this explanation is over my head or I don't think we're going to profit much from a discussion about the law as this seems rather a liberal view of law to me—actually more akin to what I might call "legal pluralism," at best. I confess it's shocking from the perspective of a Southern Baptist-raised baby boomer like me. Sometimes I really feel like a fossil.

God bless you, GP

What's your favorite Kubrick film?

.

1. My view is THE "Gospel" view, nothing less nothing more.
2. I don't really like Kubrick's films (don't "rewatch" them), but there are a few aspects of some of them that I appreciate. I guess you recognize the officer. "Well, well!" It's a reflection of that "moment of reckoning" we have to have.