Christians Must Serve by the Law

[GracePeace]

I enjoy analysis - philosophical discussion and debate. I can take an opposing point of view JUST for the sake of discussion.

Heaven forbid I go through life and might change my mind about anything!

It’s so odd that some people take ideas as a personal affront. Threads like this is why I am on this site! Endlessly squabbling, “I’m right. You’re wrong” is boring.

I have found this user to be closed off to every idea he has not uttered.
He is in "attack" mode--this thread is "Exhibit A".

 

[GracePeace]

Ya, well there are people that believe the rapture will occur with flying Saucers. But anyone that is knowledgeable of the scriptures cannot come away with the idea that Christians have any religious connection to the law.

Well, I'm glad you agree with me.
That means you don't really need to reply in disagreement.
However, there are many people who do disagree with me.
That is why I posted this debate topic--to help others.

 

[Wrangler]

The whole argument is that they aren't going to be justified just because they have a) a pedigree b) the written Law c) physical circumcision

The hostility on this site by OSAS crowd to any kind of effort, action or work being a burden Christians must bear is amazing!

Jesus said his yoke was light, not that he had no yoke.

 

[GracePeace]

The hostility on this site by OSAS crowd to any kind of effort, action or work being a burden Christians must bear is amazing!

Jesus said his yoke was light, not that he had no yoke.

Well, to be clear, I don't think the user in question is OSAS.

 

[Wrangler]

I have found this user to be closed off to every idea he has not uttered.
He is in "attack" mode--this thread is "Exhibit A".

And hence, why he is on my ignore list.

I appreciate and respect reasoned differences. I don’t appreciate or respect being unreasonable or disagreeable.

“Your doctrine does not line up with mine, 100%? Burn in hell heretic.” No love of God in that sentiment. LOL.

 

[GracePeace]

And hence, why he is on my ignore list.

I appreciate and respect reasoned differences. I don’t appreciate or respect being unreasonable or disagreeable.

“Your doctrine does not line up with mine, 100%? Burn in hell heretic.” No love of God in that sentiment. LOL.

It's quite odd.

 

[Grailhunter]

You're just disagreeing with Paul.
You went from ignoring what I've stated is my point to ignoring what Paul has stated is his point.
Actually try READING Romans 2 before responding to it.
The whole argument is that they aren't going to be justified just because they have a) a pedigree b) the written Law c) physical circumcision if they don't actually fulfill righteous requirement of the Law, and that one must be "Jewish" inwardly and then mentions how "circumcised in the heart by the Spirit" is the basis thereof. What does that refer to?
Colossians 2:11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ...
Clearly, this refers to someone being "inwardly Jewish" in relation to being Christian.

No, I do not disagree with Paul...I can pretty much bury you with scriptures that explain what Paul said about the Jews, not to mention his struggle with the Jews.
I disagree with your interpretation of Romans 2:29.
Baptism is an outwardly expression of becoming Christian.
Circumcision was an outwardly expression of becoming Jewish...entering a Covenant with Yahweh.
Unless you are going to take a knife and circumcise your heart it is metaphorical....Paul was using a theological metaphor that Christ fulfils all the commitments of the Old Testament. Circumcision was a requirement for the Old Covenant, it was away of separating yourself from Christianity in the New Testament.

 

[Wrangler]

Well, to be clear, I don't think the user in question is OSAS.

Possibly, but you whole OP points to the notion that we could have a burden, work we ought to do, action to avoid and action to initiate. That seems to generate hostility on this site for some reason.

 

[GracePeace]

No, I do not disagree with Paul...I can pretty much bury you with scriptures that explain what Paul said about the Jews, not to mention his struggle with the Jews.
I disagree with your interpretation of Romans 2:29.
Baptism is an outwardly expression of becoming Christian.
Circumcision was an outwardly expression of becoming Jewish...entering a Covenant with Yahweh.
Unless you are going to take a knife and circumcise your heart it is metaphorical....Paul was using a theological metaphor that Christ fulfils all the commitments of the Old Testament. Circumcision was a requirement for the Old Covenant, it was a way of separating yourself from Christianity in the New Testament.

1. Really? Which Scripture is "Your boasting is not good."?

2. Paul was affirming the Gentile believers by saying though they don't have the "pedigree", the "written code", or the "physical circumcision", they did have the Law "written on the heart", and that they were "circumcised in the heart by the Spirit"--Colossians 2 specifies what is "removed" is not foreskin but the antitype which is the body of the flesh (as also in Romans 6:6, Romans 7:24-25). This means that Romans 2:29 teaches one may indeed be both "Jewish" and "Christian" as I've been arguing.

 

[kcnalp]

Please do not post a bunch of "I agree" stuff.

You probably still haven't read the OP either.

What a mess.

Guys, stop responding without reading the OP.

Hebrews 8:13 (NKJV)
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete.

 

[Wrangler]

Well, I'm glad you agree with me.
That means you don't really need to reply in disagreement.

Even if I agree, iron sharpens iron.

A good friend is very philosophical and analytical. We don’t disagree but I do challenge him to be concise. To boil down the axiom to its fewest essentials.

Your OP is helping me do that.

 

[GracePeace]

Hebrews 8:13 (NKJV)
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete.

Read the OP before responding. You don't know what you're responding to.

 

[Wrangler]

Hebrews 8:13 (NKJV)
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete.

Disagree. In January a new grandchild was born. This added to my total. It did not replace all previous grandchildren.

 

[GracePeace]

Disagree. In January a new grandchild was born. This added to my total. It did not replace all previous grandchildren.

LOL

 

[GracePeace]

Even if I agree, iron sharpens iron.

A good friend is very philosophical and analytical. We don’t disagree but I do challenge him to be concise. To boil down the axiom to its fewest essentials.

Your OP is helping me do that.

The bottom line was the guy was arguing without knowing what he was arguing against.
If you "play devil's advocate" that's different.

 

[Grailhunter]

2. Paul was affirming the Gentile believers by saying though they don't have the "pedigree", the "written code", or the "physical circumcision", they did have the Law "written on the heart", and that they were "circumcised in the heart by the Spirit"--Colossians 2 specifies what is "removed" is not foreskin but the antitype which is the body of the flesh (as also in Romans 6:6, Romans 7:24-25). This means that Romans 2:29 teaches one may indeed be both "Jewish" and "Christian" as I've been arguing.

You are combining concepts....weaving a belief.

Really? Which Scripture is "Your boasting is not good."?

Which scripture? for what. What boast?

 

[GracePeace]

You are combining concepts....weaving a belief

Just reading Romans 2 in context, then magnifying Romans 2:29 for you.

Which scripture? for what. What boast?

I guess that went over your head, too.
That was Paul--you were boasting about your knowledge of Pauline Scriptures and your ability to "beat" me at Pauline Scriptures...

 

[Grailhunter]

Ya I don't think you know what you are talking about.

 

[GracePeace]

Ya I don't think you know what you are talking about.

All right, I'll let the readers decide which of us they believe.

Talk later.

 

[kcnalp]

Disagree. In January a new grandchild was born. This added to my total. It did not replace all previous grandchildren.

You disagree with what? God? lol

Hebrews 8:13 (NKJV)
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete.