Where do you see that in Scripture?That also had a covenant that propagated a new spiritual nature.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Where do you see that in Scripture?That also had a covenant that propagated a new spiritual nature.
Hence the problem! You say the Law is good, and yet claim it makes no one righteous. Make up your mind!
The problem is, you just quote Scripture and don't think through what I'm saying. The Law was indeed making Israel righteous. It was covenant that cultivated a new nature of righteousness in Israel, as opposed to the pagan culture of Egypt.
Paul was just expressing his "Christianese"
Atonement is clearly a NT term!
Rom 3.25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.
To cover sin is either to temporarily remove sin or to permanently remove sin. Animal sacrifices temporarily removed sins. Christ's sacrifice permanently removed sins.
Sorry if this came across sarcastic! I was thinking back trying to remember where I was refusing something.You are chalk full of sarcasm, brother. Why don't you try to understand what I'm saying? Of course I'm trying to discuss both our views.
I don't think you are thinking through what I'm saying here. I don't think we are to make it our business to dig into philosophy in order to be relevant. I'm not saying that's not what God will do with us. But just to try to import Scripture into philosophy or visa versa on the pursuit of relevance is to me a mistake.That's absolutely wrong-minded and selfish. God does whatever *He wants to do!* If He made a Justin Martyr, who syntheszed Christianity and philosophy, who are you to judge God for doing that? If God made the Church Fathers, who synthesized Greek language with Biblical Language, who are we to judge God for doing that?
I agree. Just don't let that become a callous, "religious" spirit! God often takes us out of our comfort zones, right? Our hearts have to be open to a fresh word every day.
All I ask is that you try to lay aside your preconceptions of me or my views. I'm perfectly happy to discuss these things, I feel them to be important.It's okay brother. I hope we get to know each other better. But as much as I disagree with you to make my points, I think your heart and head are in the right place. Let's give it time?
All I ask is that you try to lay aside your preconceptions of me or my views. I'm perfectly happy to discuss these things, I feel them to be important.
Much love!
My understanding is that the Law, both its required observances and means for absolution (temporary), lead a person to righteousness. For this was the Covenant of God, a Covenant with a promise, 'those who adhere to my decrees and precepts, shall live by them'. Again, this was a Covenant, as much as we have today, the Covenant of Faith, that those who abide by its principles shall inherit life. Two Testaments, both with a promise.
Romans 10:5. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.
The Law offered life to those who obeyed it, otherwise why stipulate such an arduous task if there were no rewards at the end. Yes, it was onerous and many failed, but provisions were established in order that one may find absolution if he was found in sin, knowingly or not. David extolled the virtues of the Law and how they brought life to those who revered them.
Clearly not everyone under the Law knew of Christ, nor anticipated a suffering Messiah, nor the redemption on the cross. Therefore, outside of the hope for a Davidic king, they could not have appreciated the spiritual salvation that would come with the inauguration of the Messiah.
Paul is establishing that the repetitious nature of the Law, sin & sacrifice, could never perpetually render someone absolved of their sins, but only temporarily. That is, only until the next time that they transgressed the Law. But the oblations and burnt offerings prescribed in the Law for forgiveness, were duly efficacious to render one guiltless for the time being. Death did not reign from Moses to Christ, nor did all the Old Testament saints comprehend the righteousness that comes with faith. And those that did, were merely foreshadowing what was to come, as in the case of Abraham (although not under Law).
Paul explained that God has offered an alternate way to salvation, one less fastidious and grueling, and more permanent. Any allusions to this in the OT were not defining a mandatory means to salvation, but an anticipation and understanding of what was to come. The Law saved those who followed all its precepts, both for righteous living, and for restitution upon failure.
I don't think you are thinking through what I'm saying here. I don't think we are to make it our business to dig into philosophy in order to be relevant. I'm not saying that's not what God will do with us. But just to try to import Scripture into philosophy or visa versa on the pursuit of relevance is to me a mistake.
Hi @Randy Kluth , please check post 33 . . . you've got me saying things Episkopos wrote.
And therefore, man's righteousness apart from faith in Christ is as filthy rags...
No cheaper than you saying that I am a student of Marcion.
But, humanistic philosophy teaches that man is inherently good rather than what the Bible says about the unregenerated heart in Jeremiah 17:9; and I happen to know that you reject the testimony of that verse for the concept that man has good in himself and can be righteous apart from Christ.
Something on this . . .
We've been talking about context, I'd like to point to the context of this passage, this is part of his build up to show how we are all guilty before God. In this particular part, I see the main theme being that being a Jew does not give you the advantage into salvation over a gentile, just because you were given the Law.
Everyone has a sense of right and wrong.
An interesting thing is in the syntax of the verbs, accusing and defending.
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
View attachment 9801
"and between one another the reasonings accusing or also defending."
While accusing is an Active Voice, defending is a Passive/Deponent verb. So what this verse is saying here, is that people know right and wrong, they accuse others, and defend themselves.
But the point I'd like to bring up is that it says when they "by nature" do the things written in the law, this is by nature, and not an act of obedience.
Now, I know that gentiles have obeyed God. It's just that this verse doesn't teach an innate ability in all people to be willingly obedient to God.
Much love!
What is your philosophy of "free will"?
Much love!
If you look at what I said, I said the righteousness of the Law is not salvific. But Scripture says plainly . . .
Galatians 2
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Much love!
That was not the statement. I'm saying you're theology implies things similar to what Marcion taught--something that I don't at all believe you want to be associated with!
I reject *your interpretation* of that verse. I do not reject the verse itself, nor what it actually means.
Jer 17.9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
How do you get from the deceitfulness of the human heart to "Total Depravity?" You don't!
To say that righteousness under the Law was meaningless, worthless, and the opposite of true righteousness is clearly in the camp of Marcion-like dualism.
But lets take a look in the full verses of 1 Corinthians 9.It was not linked to the Bible because the translation of the Bible that is utilized by these boards does not have that verse in it.
Some Bibles do in fact remove important verses and for this reason I stick to the kjv.
(I am not claiming to be an Administrator, but I did have the answer to your question).
To @Yan
I do not find that I can converse with you on this matter because you limit what you will discuss. You will only discuss the Scriptures, and only your view of them.