The law of Moses vs the law of Christ

DPMartin · Jul 1, 2021

Wrangler said:
Why is it said that Jesus fulfilled the law? It suggests it only needed to be fulfilled one time but doesn't it always have to be fulfilled, like always stopping at a stop sign for all drivers?

if one walks in the Life that fulfilled the law, then what is the walk?

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

also:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

the Word of God never changes, it becomes fulfilled. therefore, in this case the born again are not fulfilling, only walking in what has been fulfilled correctly. of which has to be the same path as the fulfillment.

so today you don't have to run to Jerusalem and slaughter livestock to stay right with the Lord. if one reads just how many offering are made if the law was kept to the letter in the case of the alter you wouldn't have much time for anything else. it would be a constant blood fest. which is how the Lord God sees what should be done in the case of sinning. but seeing the born again through His Beloved Son covers a lot. therefore the penitent life style is recommended.

DPMartin · Jul 1, 2021

robert derrick said:
"also you didn't show exactly what the law of Christ is"

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6)

There are more points of law of Christ if you like (James 2:10).

read the OT especially proverbs or psalms, that's not new Jesus info.

robert derrick · Jul 1, 2021

FHII said:
There are so many problems with this post I am quoting from, that I don't intend to get to all of them. The root of the problem is the same, however.

Lets start here. What is "the law of Christ"? It actually is listed in the Bible, as are his commandments. Plainly listed. This is a long thread and I may have missed you quoting IT as the Bible says.

I've only seen you list examples of what you claim is the law of Christ. And they were flat out partial quotes without context.

So grace is limited to a short period of time? After that, THEN you must revert back to a set of laws? Which laws? Moses laws? Christ's laws or you version of Christ's laws?

I hate to be confrontational or condescending, but you being a military man, I'm sure you are not offended. The problem you have is you are forming a doctrine based on partial verses (not just the one in Gal 5, but many others) that are not in context. And you admitted that you believe its not needed. This is a wrong way to go about it

Ending sidenotes:

- The vail of Moses was the literal vail he put on because he was so annointed by God when he came off the mountain that Israel would've perished if they saw him face to face.
- The vail spoken of in 2 Cor 3 is the Law he brought and specifically the 10 Commandments.
- The Law of Christ is found in Gal 6:1-2, and by extension 3-10. A good back up reference is Matt 6:14-15.
- The commandments of Christ are found in 1 John 3:22.

The Law of Christ is found in Gal 6:1-2, and by extension 3-10. A good back up reference is Matt 6:14-15.

Law of Christ is called: the law of the Spirit (Rom 8:2), the perfect law of liberty and the royal law. (James 1:25, 2:8,12)

I propose this is the law of God written for believers of Christ in His Covenant, changed from the law of God written by Moses in that old and vanished covenant. God has changed His law along with His priesthood and covenant. (Heb 7:12)

Law of God has both commandment to do and commandment not to do. All are referred to as points of law (James 2:10): For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

There are several commandments to do in Christ, including the one you pointed out to bear one another's burdens. James also pointed to the great commandment as fulfilling the royal law: If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.

Therefore, the law of Christ that is not so popular is that which we are commanded not to do, and it is a list of 'points of law' that are usually referred to as a list of 'donts':

If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (1 Cor 5:11)

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6)

There are others listed in the Covenant Scriptures of Christ, as well as singly, such as not being a respecter of persons (James 2:1), even as God is not. (Acts 10:34)

All such commandments to do and not to do are in the law of Christ and written upon our hearts, and that which we ought not do is the law of God that is not necessary for listing to the righteous in Christ, because it is already in our hearts, and with faith and love of Christ, we need not be reminded daily to avoid. However we are exhorted and reminded through out the Covenant of Christ to fulfill all the law by loving God and our neighbors as ourselves. They who do such things from the heart need not any such listing of law of what not to do against God and man.

These are the names and commandments of the law of Christ, and outside of the Scriptures of the Covenant of Christ, not so named nor written, are not law of God for believers in Christ, even if they were law and commandment of God by Moses in the old covenant that is done away with them.

robert derrick · Jul 1, 2021

DPMartin said:
read the OT especially proverbs or psalms, that's not new Jesus info.

No it is not new, but it is newly written info in law of Christ, that was likewise info in law of Moses. Much of the law of God by Moses written by Moses is written again by the apostles in law of Christ, but likewise much of law of Moses is not written again in law of Christ.

The physical seed of Abraham by Sarah were commanded to obey all the law of Moses, and the seed of promise of Abraham by Christ are commanded to keep all the law of Christ.

We only obey Christ and His apostles, not Moses. And they who see Moses only obey Moses of old, not Christ and His apostles.

Judaizers mix law of Moses written in the Old with law of Christ not written in the New.

FHII · Jul 1, 2021

robert derrick said:
Law of Christ is called: the law of the Spirit (Rom 8:2), the perfect law of liberty and the royal law. (James 1:25, 2:8,12)

robert derrick said:
Law of God has both commandment to do and commandment not to do. All are referred to as points of law (James 2:10): For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

I have no problem with calling the Law of Christ, "the law of the spirit/liberty/ royal law". ALL of such go back to "The Great Commandments" in Matthew 22:37-40. The problem is when you add "not to do" things with this Law.

robert derrick said:
If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (1 Cor 5:11)

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6)

And here is a prime example! I have no problem with these verses: they are there and often quoted. When the Corinthians were doing these things they were breaking the law of Christ, but NOT because of the act itself, but rather to whom it was done to.

So few seem to me to understand what the rebuke to the Corinthians was truly about. People tend to point out they were... Lets just say way out of control! Too many offenses to list. But the problem was not fornication or drunkenness; it was that they disobeyed what James said was the royal law. They weren't loving their neighbor (their brother, in proper context).

In the opening statements of chapter 6 Paul is upset with them for suing each other and taking their case before unbelievers, and not settling it amongst other Christians. Perhaps there is a "Law of Christ" you missed: Thou shalt not sue a Christian if the jury members or judge is not a Christian"!

The real problem was strife in Corinth. Yeah, they were doing a bunch of bad things, but it was abuse of brethren which really upset Paul. So now we come to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which you came are the "don'ts" of the law of Christ:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Yes, true... By they way, look at verse 8:

1 Corinthians 6:8 KJV
Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

This is what really concerned Paul. No, he didn't like that they did them, but he wasn't going to stand for the brethren to be done wrong to. Lets move on to verse 11:

1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

It would seem that this means if you do anything in verses 9 and 10, then you really aren't saved, but that is not what it is saying. Lets move on to the next verse:

1 Corinthians 6:12 KJV
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

And here, things really get interesting. Yes, I did bold certain texts and not the rest, but that doesn't mean I am ignoring it.

Paul lists a bunch of "don'ts" but then turns around and says ALL things are lawful. Well, that includes the don'ts. They ARE lawful! They are not expedient and we should not be brought under their power.

So why would that be? He said don't do them, but said they are lawful. What's missing? Well, what's missing is that they were being done to defraud the brethren.

In short, those things listed in 1 Cor are covered by grace. But we are told not to use them as a cloke of maliciousness, as Peter said.

DPMartin · Jul 1, 2021

robert derrick said:
No it is not new, but it is newly written info in law of Christ, that was likewise info in law of Moses. Much of the law of God by Moses written by Moses is written again by the apostles in law of Christ, but likewise much of law of Moses is not written again in law of Christ.

The physical seed of Abraham by Sarah were commanded to obey all the law of Moses, and the seed of promise of Abraham by Christ are commanded to keep all the law of Christ.

We only obey Christ and His apostles, not Moses. And they who see Moses only obey Moses of old, not Christ and His apostles.

Judaizers mix law of Moses written in the Old with law of Christ not written in the New.

no its not, its fulfilled not new.

also the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob where chosen by the Lord there God. and in the dessert the children of Israel were made to agree to the covenant (ten Commandments)

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
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.

and further on:
Gen_17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Gen_17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

this would mean the seed after him has no choice to be chosen, just as the Jews are today. you could say it means Jacob only but you know its God's choice through out.

a agreement, and the fulfillment of the agreement is all that matters here. and God sees to it being fulfilled to His satisfaction on both sides.
the Word of God had to come into the world via the Son of man and fulfill in the Spirit of God with with and in Father to fulfill what the man is supposed to do to meat man's side of all the covenants starting with Adam. Jesus is the fulfillment of what the man is made to be. hence accommodating the Presence of God within to execute God's Judgement in the earth, which is Life, because God's Judgement is good for His creation.

the good news or Gospel, is its fulfilled from:
Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

to:

Joh_19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

is one dispensation
and
Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

to His return in Glory

but this is all a fulfillment of what God's will is in the first place when He made the man in His own image and likeness its simply that God has His people and they have their God, in the Presence of each other. same rules apply through out. the same things please God and the same things displease God why would you think that would change?

robert derrick · Jul 2, 2021

FHII said:
I have no problem with calling the Law of Christ, "the law of the spirit/liberty/ royal law". ALL of such go back to "The Great Commandments" in Matthew 22:37-40. The problem is when you add "not to do" things with this Law.

And here is a prime example! I have no problem with these verses: they are there and often quoted. When the Corinthians were doing these things they were breaking the law of Christ, but NOT because of the act itself, but rather to whom it was done to.

So few seem to me to understand what the rebuke to the Corinthians was truly about. People tend to point out they were... Lets just say way out of control! Too many offenses to list. But the problem was not fornication or drunkenness; it was that they disobeyed what James said was the royal law. They weren't loving their neighbor (their brother, in proper context).

In the opening statements of chapter 6 Paul is upset with them for suing each other and taking their case before unbelievers, and not settling it amongst other Christians. Perhaps there is a "Law of Christ" you missed: Thou shalt not sue a Christian if the jury members or judge is not a Christian"!

The real problem was strife in Corinth. Yeah, they were doing a bunch of bad things, but it was abuse of brethren which really upset Paul. So now we come to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which you came are the "don'ts" of the law of Christ:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Yes, true... By they way, look at verse 8:

1 Corinthians 6:8 KJV
Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

This is what really concerned Paul. No, he didn't like that they did them, but he wasn't going to stand for the brethren to be done wrong to. Lets move on to verse 11:

1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

It would seem that this means if you do anything in verses 9 and 10, then you really aren't saved, but that is not what it is saying. Lets move on to the next verse:

1 Corinthians 6:12 KJV
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

And here, things really get interesting. Yes, I did bold certain texts and not the rest, but that doesn't mean I am ignoring it.

Paul lists a bunch of "don'ts" but then turns around and says ALL things are lawful. Well, that includes the don'ts. They ARE lawful! They are not expedient and we should not be brought under their power.

So why would that be? He said don't do them, but said they are lawful. What's missing? Well, what's missing is that they were being done to defraud the brethren.

In short, those things listed in 1 Cor are covered by grace. But we are told not to use them as a cloke of maliciousness, as Peter said.

You have an interesting take. It would seem I come at it from the problem of lust, while you from the problem of not loving?

All things are lawful in that drinking, sex, money, meats, drinks, etc...all things are clean of themselves, but lust corrupts them and results in drunkenness, fornication, lusting for riches, etc... while you say they are examples of not loving God and brother and neighbor?

In both cases, transgressing the law is proof of frustrating grace by which we are saved and justified with God, and grieving the Spirit by Whom we are delivered and sanctified from transgressions of the world.

I suppose you would suggest focusing on the cure rather than shooting at the symptom? And turning to grace of God for help in time of need, rather than turning to law to condemn as guilty? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 15)

I am getting the sense that you are unsettled with James, because he seems to be frustrating this angle of approach to God and grace, by focusing on doers of such things as transgressors of the law.

What about the fact that we are commanded with no uncertainty nor wiggle room to not keep company with them that do such things, who are become open and willful transgressors of the law of Christ, while professing faith in Jesus and love of God. Jesus confirms this by concluding we are to shun such 'believers' after confronting them individually and if necessary openly before the church. (Matthew 18:17)

robert derrick · Jul 2, 2021

FHII said:
I have no problem with calling the Law of Christ, "the law of the spirit/liberty/ royal law". ALL of such go back to "The Great Commandments" in Matthew 22:37-40. The problem is when you add "not to do" things with this Law.

And here is a prime example! I have no problem with these verses: they are there and often quoted. When the Corinthians were doing these things they were breaking the law of Christ, but NOT because of the act itself, but rather to whom it was done to.

So few seem to me to understand what the rebuke to the Corinthians was truly about. People tend to point out they were... Lets just say way out of control! Too many offenses to list. But the problem was not fornication or drunkenness; it was that they disobeyed what James said was the royal law. They weren't loving their neighbor (their brother, in proper context).

In the opening statements of chapter 6 Paul is upset with them for suing each other and taking their case before unbelievers, and not settling it amongst other Christians. Perhaps there is a "Law of Christ" you missed: Thou shalt not sue a Christian if the jury members or judge is not a Christian"!

The real problem was strife in Corinth. Yeah, they were doing a bunch of bad things, but it was abuse of brethren which really upset Paul. So now we come to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which you came are the "don'ts" of the law of Christ:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Yes, true... By they way, look at verse 8:

1 Corinthians 6:8 KJV
Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

This is what really concerned Paul. No, he didn't like that they did them, but he wasn't going to stand for the brethren to be done wrong to. Lets move on to verse 11:

1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

It would seem that this means if you do anything in verses 9 and 10, then you really aren't saved, but that is not what it is saying. Lets move on to the next verse:

1 Corinthians 6:12 KJV
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

And here, things really get interesting. Yes, I did bold certain texts and not the rest, but that doesn't mean I am ignoring it.

Paul lists a bunch of "don'ts" but then turns around and says ALL things are lawful. Well, that includes the don'ts. They ARE lawful! They are not expedient and we should not be brought under their power.

So why would that be? He said don't do them, but said they are lawful. What's missing? Well, what's missing is that they were being done to defraud the brethren.

In short, those things listed in 1 Cor are covered by grace. But we are told not to use them as a cloke of maliciousness, as Peter said.

Perhaps there is a "Law of Christ" you missed: Thou shalt not sue a Christian if the jury members or judge is not a Christian"!
1. I didnt try to list everything.
2. I would call that a rebuke, rather than a transgression of law. I believe there is a difference.
3. All such things don't need to be listed, and in fact none of them need be listed to the righteous who walk after the Spirit.

I believe there are two reasons why the 'points' of law are listed in Scripture for the believers:
1. We thereby have scriptural justification to ostracize hypocrites, as we are commanded to do, which is no fun at all and ought be grievous to do, and must be accompanied with the true spirituality of restoring those that repent (Gal 6:1)(James 5:19-20)

2. Most importantly is to know the difference between the law of Christ and the commandments of men. If someone tries to call me a transgressor, I demand they show me in the Scripture where it pointedly says so.

And this is the main subject of the thread: to know difference between law of Christ and law of men, and that referring to law of Moses for law of Christ is in deep error, and most commonly done by very sincere believers, who only wish to have discipline in the church and body of Christ as we are commanded.

One such is Sabbath-keeping by law. They literally must shun and ostracize any believer who does not faithfully do so, and on Saturday only. If not for the fact that no such commandment is included in the law of Christ, then I would be compelled to agree with them, that any who do not keep the Sabbath on Saturday!, are become transgressors of the law of God (James 2:11) and headed to eternal damnation, along with any fornicator, thief, and murderer that does not repent.

And we know the exact demarcation line from the law of God by Moses transitioning to the law of God by Christ: when His covenant with the physical seed was completely done away, along with that law. Which occurred at the Scriptures telling the death of Jesus on the cross.

robert derrick · Jul 2, 2021

FHII said:
I have no problem with calling the Law of Christ, "the law of the spirit/liberty/ royal law". ALL of such go back to "The Great Commandments" in Matthew 22:37-40. The problem is when you add "not to do" things with this Law.

And here is a prime example! I have no problem with these verses: they are there and often quoted. When the Corinthians were doing these things they were breaking the law of Christ, but NOT because of the act itself, but rather to whom it was done to.

So few seem to me to understand what the rebuke to the Corinthians was truly about. People tend to point out they were... Lets just say way out of control! Too many offenses to list. But the problem was not fornication or drunkenness; it was that they disobeyed what James said was the royal law. They weren't loving their neighbor (their brother, in proper context).

In the opening statements of chapter 6 Paul is upset with them for suing each other and taking their case before unbelievers, and not settling it amongst other Christians. Perhaps there is a "Law of Christ" you missed: Thou shalt not sue a Christian if the jury members or judge is not a Christian"!

The real problem was strife in Corinth. Yeah, they were doing a bunch of bad things, but it was abuse of brethren which really upset Paul. So now we come to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which you came are the "don'ts" of the law of Christ:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Yes, true... By they way, look at verse 8:

1 Corinthians 6:8 KJV
Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

This is what really concerned Paul. No, he didn't like that they did them, but he wasn't going to stand for the brethren to be done wrong to. Lets move on to verse 11:

1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

It would seem that this means if you do anything in verses 9 and 10, then you really aren't saved, but that is not what it is saying. Lets move on to the next verse:

1 Corinthians 6:12 KJV
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

And here, things really get interesting. Yes, I did bold certain texts and not the rest, but that doesn't mean I am ignoring it.

Paul lists a bunch of "don'ts" but then turns around and says ALL things are lawful. Well, that includes the don'ts. They ARE lawful! They are not expedient and we should not be brought under their power.

So why would that be? He said don't do them, but said they are lawful. What's missing? Well, what's missing is that they were being done to defraud the brethren.

In short, those things listed in 1 Cor are covered by grace. But we are told not to use them as a cloke of maliciousness, as Peter said.

but NOT because of the act itself, but rather to whom it was done to. Well, what's missing is that they were being done to defraud the brethren.

Isnt that a little like saying: Well, so long as I'm not doing it to someone else? So long as I'm not hurting someone else? So, long as we are consensual adults?

What about defiling the temple of God, which is ourselves?

robert derrick · Jul 2, 2021

FHII said:
I have no problem with calling the Law of Christ, "the law of the spirit/liberty/ royal law". ALL of such go back to "The Great Commandments" in Matthew 22:37-40. The problem is when you add "not to do" things with this Law.

And here is a prime example! I have no problem with these verses: they are there and often quoted. When the Corinthians were doing these things they were breaking the law of Christ, but NOT because of the act itself, but rather to whom it was done to.

So few seem to me to understand what the rebuke to the Corinthians was truly about. People tend to point out they were... Lets just say way out of control! Too many offenses to list. But the problem was not fornication or drunkenness; it was that they disobeyed what James said was the royal law. They weren't loving their neighbor (their brother, in proper context).

In the opening statements of chapter 6 Paul is upset with them for suing each other and taking their case before unbelievers, and not settling it amongst other Christians. Perhaps there is a "Law of Christ" you missed: Thou shalt not sue a Christian if the jury members or judge is not a Christian"!

The real problem was strife in Corinth. Yeah, they were doing a bunch of bad things, but it was abuse of brethren which really upset Paul. So now we come to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which you came are the "don'ts" of the law of Christ:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Yes, true... By they way, look at verse 8:

1 Corinthians 6:8 KJV
Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

This is what really concerned Paul. No, he didn't like that they did them, but he wasn't going to stand for the brethren to be done wrong to. Lets move on to verse 11:

1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

It would seem that this means if you do anything in verses 9 and 10, then you really aren't saved, but that is not what it is saying. Lets move on to the next verse:

1 Corinthians 6:12 KJV
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

And here, things really get interesting. Yes, I did bold certain texts and not the rest, but that doesn't mean I am ignoring it.

Paul lists a bunch of "don'ts" but then turns around and says ALL things are lawful. Well, that includes the don'ts. They ARE lawful! They are not expedient and we should not be brought under their power.

So why would that be? He said don't do them, but said they are lawful. What's missing? Well, what's missing is that they were being done to defraud the brethren.

In short, those things listed in 1 Cor are covered by grace. But we are told not to use them as a cloke of maliciousness, as Peter said.

Paul lists a bunch of "don'ts" but then turns around and says ALL things are lawful. Well, that includes the don'ts. They ARE lawful! They are not expedient and we should not be brought under their power.

So, they are lawful, but not expedient when affecting others?

If so, this is where we disagree.

I believe Paul was confirming that all things in themselves are clean (Rom 14:14) and are lawful to be partaken of, whether they be meats, drinks, drugs, sex, wealth, etc...However, if they begin to have power over us again, contrary to sanctification of the Spirit in transgression of the law of Christ, then we have allowed lust to enter again, and we corrupt ourselves with drunkenness, gluttony, fornication, love of money, etc...

So sex is clean and lawful of itself, but fornication is not lawful, because it is a plainly written transgression of the law of Christ, which says such fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom of God, whether they be consensual adults in private or not...And if they expose themselves openly without shame nor repentance, then we are commanded not to keep company with them in the fellowship of Christ.

It is the lust of the world that is the problem of mankind (1 John 2:16), and it is the grace of God by faith of Jesus to destroy that lust in our hearts, along with crucifying that old man of sin, that we may become new creatures and new men in Christ, who were doers of such things, that are not lawful to do by any man, whether believer or not.

robert derrick · Jul 2, 2021

FHII said:
I have no problem with calling the Law of Christ, "the law of the spirit/liberty/ royal law". ALL of such go back to "The Great Commandments" in Matthew 22:37-40. The problem is when you add "not to do" things with this Law.

And here is a prime example! I have no problem with these verses: they are there and often quoted. When the Corinthians were doing these things they were breaking the law of Christ, but NOT because of the act itself, but rather to whom it was done to.

So few seem to me to understand what the rebuke to the Corinthians was truly about. People tend to point out they were... Lets just say way out of control! Too many offenses to list. But the problem was not fornication or drunkenness; it was that they disobeyed what James said was the royal law. They weren't loving their neighbor (their brother, in proper context).

In the opening statements of chapter 6 Paul is upset with them for suing each other and taking their case before unbelievers, and not settling it amongst other Christians. Perhaps there is a "Law of Christ" you missed: Thou shalt not sue a Christian if the jury members or judge is not a Christian"!

The real problem was strife in Corinth. Yeah, they were doing a bunch of bad things, but it was abuse of brethren which really upset Paul. So now we come to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which you came are the "don'ts" of the law of Christ:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Yes, true... By they way, look at verse 8:

1 Corinthians 6:8 KJV
Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

This is what really concerned Paul. No, he didn't like that they did them, but he wasn't going to stand for the brethren to be done wrong to. Lets move on to verse 11:

1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

It would seem that this means if you do anything in verses 9 and 10, then you really aren't saved, but that is not what it is saying. Lets move on to the next verse:

1 Corinthians 6:12 KJV
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

And here, things really get interesting. Yes, I did bold certain texts and not the rest, but that doesn't mean I am ignoring it.

Paul lists a bunch of "don'ts" but then turns around and says ALL things are lawful. Well, that includes the don'ts. They ARE lawful! They are not expedient and we should not be brought under their power.

So why would that be? He said don't do them, but said they are lawful. What's missing? Well, what's missing is that they were being done to defraud the brethren.

In short, those things listed in 1 Cor are covered by grace. But we are told not to use them as a cloke of maliciousness, as Peter said.

In short, those things listed in 1 Cor are covered by grace. But we are told not to use them as a cloke of maliciousness,

at risk of being a stickler, what Scripture says grace 'covers' sins? Maybe there is a another word for it.

But the love and charity of God covers a multitude of sins, and I believe those are sins of imperfection and of ignorance, but once sin is known it must be confessed with God to be forgiven, and work toward repentance.

And don't get me wrong, I by no way believe Scripture teaches a 'loss' of salvation or justification with God do to a single transgression of His law, and that he can forgiven a great multitude of confessed sin, 70 x 7. But while only Jesus was and ever shall be the only sinless Christian, God does will us to be without transgression in Him.

robert derrick · Jul 2, 2021

FHII said:
There are so many problems with this post I am quoting from, that I don't intend to get to all of them. The root of the problem is the same, however.

Lets start here. What is "the law of Christ"? It actually is listed in the Bible, as are his commandments. Plainly listed. This is a long thread and I may have missed you quoting IT as the Bible says.

I've only seen you list examples of what you claim is the law of Christ. And they were flat out partial quotes without context.

So grace is limited to a short period of time? After that, THEN you must revert back to a set of laws? Which laws? Moses laws? Christ's laws or you version of Christ's laws?

I hate to be confrontational or condescending, but you being a military man, I'm sure you are not offended. The problem you have is you are forming a doctrine based on partial verses (not just the one in Gal 5, but many others) that are not in context. And you admitted that you believe its not needed. This is a wrong way to go about it

Ending sidenotes:

- The vail of Moses was the literal vail he put on because he was so annointed by God when he came off the mountain that Israel would've perished if they saw him face to face.
- The vail spoken of in 2 Cor 3 is the Law he brought and specifically the 10 Commandments.
- The Law of Christ is found in Gal 6:1-2, and by extension 3-10. A good back up reference is Matt 6:14-15.
- The commandments of Christ are found in 1 John 3:22.

So grace is limited to a short period of time? After that, THEN you must revert back to a set of laws?

I was referring to the space of time the Lord granted for repentance (Rev 2:21). What does that mean, if not a limited amount of time to repent?

Also, what is it to fall from grace (Gal 5:4), to fall away (Luke 8:13)(Heb 6:6), to fall (2 Peter 1:10)?

It was the Galatians that had fallen from grace, because they did revert back the law of Moses, for justification with God.

To me, we fall from grace by falling from our seat in heavenly places, which is by grace, such as the star fallen in Rev 9:1.

robert derrick · Jul 2, 2021

FHII said:
There are so many problems with this post I am quoting from, that I don't intend to get to all of them. The root of the problem is the same, however.

Lets start here. What is "the law of Christ"? It actually is listed in the Bible, as are his commandments. Plainly listed. This is a long thread and I may have missed you quoting IT as the Bible says.

I've only seen you list examples of what you claim is the law of Christ. And they were flat out partial quotes without context.

So grace is limited to a short period of time? After that, THEN you must revert back to a set of laws? Which laws? Moses laws? Christ's laws or you version of Christ's laws?

I hate to be confrontational or condescending, but you being a military man, I'm sure you are not offended. The problem you have is you are forming a doctrine based on partial verses (not just the one in Gal 5, but many others) that are not in context. And you admitted that you believe its not needed. This is a wrong way to go about it

Ending sidenotes:

- The vail of Moses was the literal vail he put on because he was so annointed by God when he came off the mountain that Israel would've perished if they saw him face to face.
- The vail spoken of in 2 Cor 3 is the Law he brought and specifically the 10 Commandments.
- The Law of Christ is found in Gal 6:1-2, and by extension 3-10. A good back up reference is Matt 6:14-15.
- The commandments of Christ are found in 1 John 3:22.

The vail spoken of in 2 Cor 3 is the Law he brought and specifically the 10 Commandments.

Ok, and I believe it is the same thing. We shouldn't be reading Scriptures with the vail of 10 commandments and law of Moses nor the old covenant on our hearts, but only the commandments and law of Christ written for His covenant. I would add prophecies to that as well.

All the things of Moses of old is done away and vanished. If any of it applies to believers to day, it is because it is written again as such for us to obey.

And yet, any believer in Christ is more than welcome to apply any Scripture they like in their own lives, since all Scripture remains good and instructive for use. The error of ministry comes when such liberty becomes a cloke of maliciousness to preach such personally chosen things as law and commandment for all, on pain of becoming transgressors if not. I.e. circumcision and Sabbath keeping.

robert derrick · Jul 2, 2021

FHII said:
There are so many problems with this post I am quoting from, that I don't intend to get to all of them. The root of the problem is the same, however.

Lets start here. What is "the law of Christ"? It actually is listed in the Bible, as are his commandments. Plainly listed. This is a long thread and I may have missed you quoting IT as the Bible says.

I've only seen you list examples of what you claim is the law of Christ. And they were flat out partial quotes without context.

So grace is limited to a short period of time? After that, THEN you must revert back to a set of laws? Which laws? Moses laws? Christ's laws or you version of Christ's laws?

I hate to be confrontational or condescending, but you being a military man, I'm sure you are not offended. The problem you have is you are forming a doctrine based on partial verses (not just the one in Gal 5, but many others) that are not in context. And you admitted that you believe its not needed. This is a wrong way to go about it

Ending sidenotes:

- The vail of Moses was the literal vail he put on because he was so annointed by God when he came off the mountain that Israel would've perished if they saw him face to face.
- The vail spoken of in 2 Cor 3 is the Law he brought and specifically the 10 Commandments.
- The Law of Christ is found in Gal 6:1-2, and by extension 3-10. A good back up reference is Matt 6:14-15.
- The commandments of Christ are found in 1 John 3:22.

The commandments of Christ are found in 1 John 3:22.

"And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight."

And those commandments are?

One of them is to believe on His name and to love one another, which is the royal law in James 2. By which we keep all His commandments, and no law can speak against, and so in this manner it is unnecessary to list transgressions thereof, for them that obey that one great commandment.

And just listing the points of law of Christ is not the purpose of this thread, but rather to counter all the lawmaking people do by bringing back in the law of Moses, which is not law of Christ, except it be written as such in the covenant of Christ.

Michiah-Imla · Jul 2, 2021

robert derrick said:
The commandments of Christ are found in 1 John 3:22

The commandments of Christ are the commandments of God: the entire volume of scriptures are “Christ’s commandments”:

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49)

"He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14:24)

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15)

This practice of nullifying scripture is detestable.

robert derrick · Jul 2, 2021

sundown sam said:
I am assuming you do not believe in the keeping of the Sabbath. Please show me where in the Scriptures does it say that the Sabbath is done away with, and please explain your position, and then I will show you that the Scriptures agree with the keeping of the Sabbath. Let me may this clear, I like to have a mutual discussion, not pointing fingers whose wrong, The Scriptures will let us know what God made clear.

1. The law and commandments God gave to Moses on the mount, that were engraven in stone and placed in the ark, were done away, with their glory, to make way for the law of Christ and His greater glory.

"But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." (2 Cor 3:7-10)

Paul was not asking if they were done away, but showing why they were done away. All the law and commandments engraven on those stones have been done away. To me, no other reading is possible.

2. My position is what I see Scripture plainly saying: the Old Covenant with the law of Moses and commandments given to the physical seed of Israel, along with the priesthood, have been done away, have vanished away, no longer exist with God: no longer offered from God, nor enforced By God upon His people.

And so the law of God has changed form that of Moses to that of Christ (Heb 7:12). If any of that law of Moses of old has been written again for the covenant of Christ by His apostles, then it is law and commandment for Christians today. And much has been written again, such as the law of marriage (Rom 7:1-3), thou shalt not kill, steal, commit adultery, etc... (James 2), as well as the greatest commandments called the royal law by James.

No Sabbath keeping. In fact, the only place even the very word 'Sabbath' is mentioned for the Covenant of Christ, is when we are told not to judge one another with it, along with meats, drinks, holy days, etc...all of which things from law of Moses have been done away, and not renewed again as such in law of Christ. (2 Cor 2:16-17)

And let me also say plainly that I am glad for any believer who keeps a Sabbath for their own blessing and benefit in Christ. I do not say that I don't observe one day out of seven as a day of rest, and unto the Lord for His blessing. But to then go about preaching it, as well as pertaining to a certain day of the week, as law and commandment for all believers to obey in the Covenant of Christ, is to me an error of ministry, no matter how well intentioned.

Unless there is Scripture in the Covenant of Christ written as such. And to me all such Scripture is written after the changing of the covenant of God from old to Christ, which occurred with Jesus' death on the cross. All Scriptures after that contain the law of Christ written by His apostles. The apostles wrote the Gospels of Jesus as an obedient Jew and prophet of God, and so He was obedient to the law of Moses, which He Himself as LORD gave on the mount.

I like to have a mutual discussion, not pointing fingers whose wrong

I agree. We should keep our fingers pointed to the Scriptures, and let everyone judge for themselves.

robert derrick · Jul 2, 2021

Michiah-Imla said:
The commandments of Christ are the commandments of God: the entire volume of scriptures are “Christ’s commandments”:

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49)

"He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14:24)

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15)

This practice of nullifying scripture is detestable.

As detestable as nullifying Covenant and making it old and vanished? or as detestable as nullifying the Levitical priesthood that was called everlasting? (Number 25:13) How about the vail of Moses being nullified from our hearts? (2 Cor 3)

Or you could say done away as Scripture does, rather than nullify, so it won't be so detestable to you:

But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones... be done away...For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

No Scripture has ever been nullified, but all Scripture is still good for instruction and use (2 Tim 3:16), therefore you dont have to practice nullifying anything you don't want to. You can go all thru Scripture and do it as much as you want to your stout heart's content, just don't be preaching it to others as mighty lawgiver, if it isn't written as such for believers in Christ in His Covenant.

This practice of teaching law and not knowing what is going on is detestable.

"Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."

robert derrick · Jul 2, 2021

Michiah-Imla said:
The commandments of Christ are the commandments of God: the entire volume of scriptures are “Christ’s commandments”:

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49)

"He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14:24)

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15)

This practice of nullifying scripture is detestable.

The commandments of Christ are the commandments of God: the entire volume of scriptures are “Christ’s commandments”:

Of course they are, He being the eternal Word of God, Who gave every commandment, precept, judgment, ordinance, and statute for law of His Covenant of old to Moses. Even as He changed that law (Heb 7) and gave His new law for His New covenant to us to obey.

So, this practice of the Lord changing His law, is that equally detestable to you who say thou shalt not do that Lord, it is detestable?

With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? (Isaiah 40)

Gregory · Jul 2, 2021

FHII said:
I have no problem with calling the Law of Christ, "the law of the spirit/liberty/ royal law". ALL of such go back to "The Great Commandments" in Matthew 22:37-40. The problem is when you add "not to do" things with this Law.

And here is a prime example! I have no problem with these verses: they are there and often quoted. When the Corinthians were doing these things they were breaking the law of Christ, but NOT because of the act itself, but rather to whom it was done to.

So few seem to me to understand what the rebuke to the Corinthians was truly about. People tend to point out they were... Lets just say way out of control! Too many offenses to list. But the problem was not fornication or drunkenness; it was that they disobeyed what James said was the royal law. They weren't loving their neighbor (their brother, in proper context).

In the opening statements of chapter 6 Paul is upset with them for suing each other and taking their case before unbelievers, and not settling it amongst other Christians. Perhaps there is a "Law of Christ" you missed: Thou shalt not sue a Christian if the jury members or judge is not a Christian"!

The real problem was strife in Corinth. Yeah, they were doing a bunch of bad things, but it was abuse of brethren which really upset Paul. So now we come to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which you came are the "don'ts" of the law of Christ:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Yes, true... By they way, look at verse 8:

1 Corinthians 6:8 KJV
Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

This is what really concerned Paul. No, he didn't like that they did them, but he wasn't going to stand for the brethren to be done wrong to. Lets move on to verse 11:

1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

It would seem that this means if you do anything in verses 9 and 10, then you really aren't saved, but that is not what it is saying. Lets move on to the next verse:

1 Corinthians 6:12 KJV
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

And here, things really get interesting. Yes, I did bold certain texts and not the rest, but that doesn't mean I am ignoring it.

Paul lists a bunch of "don'ts" but then turns around and says ALL things are lawful. Well, that includes the don'ts. They ARE lawful! They are not expedient and we should not be brought under their power.

So why would that be? He said don't do them, but said they are lawful. What's missing? Well, what's missing is that they were being done to defraud the brethren.

In short, those things listed in 1 Cor are covered by grace. But we are told not to use them as a cloke of maliciousness, as Peter said.

So those "do not do things" listed in 1 Cor. and are covered by grace, are things our liberty in Christ allows us to do now, because after we murder someone, grace covers the sin automatically, and all things are automatically made right again? Is that how it works in your religion?

FHII · Jul 2, 2021

robert derrick said:
at risk of being a stickler, what Scripture says grace 'covers' sins? Maybe there is a another word for it.

Really? Romans 3:23-25, Romans 4:4-8, Romans 5:15-20, Romans 6:14, 1 Corinthians 6:14, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 2:8, Titus 2:7, Titus 3:11, Hebrews 10:12-14.

robert derrick said:
I suppose you would suggest focusing on the cure rather than shooting at the symptom? And turning to grace of God for help in time of need, rather than turning to law to condemn as guilty?

Well yes. Why not turn to the cure which is Jesus Christ? You are not going to get rid of the cause (the flesh) nor the symptoms.

robert derrick said:
I was referring to the space of time the Lord granted for repentance (Rev 2:21). What does that mean, if not a limited amount of time to repent?

Whole different situation. False worship isn't covered by grace, especially when God points it out (which he did).

robert derrick said:
The commandments of Christ are found in 1 John 3:22.

"And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight."

And those commandments are?

Well its in the next verse down. My mistake, but you couldn't look one more verse down to see what verse 22 was talking about?

1 John 3:23 KJV
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

robert derrick said:
And just listing the points of law of Christ is not the purpose of this thread, but rather to counter all the lawmaking people do by bringing back in the law of Moses, which is not law of Christ, except it be written as such in the covenant of Christ.

Well be careful how you do that. Thats my whole point: using half of a verse here and a verse out of context without realizing the real problem will end up leading one right back to Moses.

robert derrick said:
What about defiling the temple of God, which is ourselves?

Well there are a whole lot of verses to explain that. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, if Christ be in you the body is dead and the temple of God is the body of Christ (one body, many members).

So you really can't dismiss it when he says all things are lawful (he actually said it twice). I gave you my explanation, so what yours for it being in there?

The law of Moses vs the law of Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads