God's 'Transition' For law To Grace

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,247
6,540
113
#41
God's righteousness is eternal, therefore all of His instructions for how to testify about His righteousness are also eternal (Psalm 119:160).


I'm not seeing a good reason to interpret those verses as referring to the Law of God, especially because all of God's righteous laws are eternal. God did not make any mistakes when He gave His law, so he had no need to send Jesus to abolish His law. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish God's law, so saying that he abolished is calling him a liar. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, Paul said that our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, so Paul would also be contradicting himself. Eternal instructions for how to testify about God's eternal nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God.

In Ephesians 2:10, we are new creations in Christ to do good works, so it wouldn't make sense to think that Jesus did away with his instructions for how to do good works just a few verses later. In regard to Ephesians 2:14, God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves. In regard to Ephesians 2:15, justification needs to be given for why the Greek word "dogma" should be interpreted as referring to the Law of God when it refers to something other than the Law of God every other time it is used by the Bible. In Ephesians 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated from Christ alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world, but through faith in Christ all of that is no longer true, so Gentiles are becoming joined to these things in accordance with obedience to the God's law, not Jews rejecting these things and becoming joined to Gentiles in accordance with God's law being abolished.


Indeed, one which involves following the Mosaic Law according to Jeremiah 31:33.
Jesus Yeshua is the "mercy clause" of God's laws. That is, any who come to Him in Spirit and truth may apply that clause whenever they know they have transgressed a law of truth, love, mercy and morality.

God is good all of the time, but many read otherwise when the commandments rub them the wrong way.. He upbraided the Pharisees when they applied the law wrongly, as do so many do togay. If a law has no mercy it may be ignored.
 

Soyeong

Active member
Oct 11, 2023
771
93
28
#43
saying indeed is not an answer and is evasive and could mean many things.
You asked if anyone observed Sukkot and I answered affirmatively, so I don't see how that is being evasive.

John 5

45 “Don’t think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you, even Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you don’t believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
Verses can be interpreted in a variety of ways, so it generally helps if you explain why you are citing them. In any case, I agree that we can't believe Christ's words without also believing the writings of Moses.

Hebrews 8

1 Now in the things which we are saying, the main point is this: we have such a high Priest, Who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Servant of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Adonai pitched, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this high Priest also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, seeing there are priests who offer the gifts according to the Torah, 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses was warned by EL when he was about to make the tabernacle, for He said, “See, you shall make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain.” 6 But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 33:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if the New Covenant does everything that it does plus more, which is what it means to make something obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). So the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10), plus it is based on better promise and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).
 
E

evyaniy

Guest
#44
You asked if anyone observed Sukkot and I answered affirmatively, so I don't see how that is being evasive.



Verses can be interpreted in a variety of ways, so it generally helps if you explain why you are citing them. In any case, I agree that we can't believe Christ's words without also believing the writings of Moses.



The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 33:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if the New Covenant does everything that it does plus more, which is what it means to make something obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). So the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10), plus it is based on better promise and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).
How did you observe it? Did you reside in temporary shelter for 7 days?
 
E

evyaniy

Guest
#45
The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 33:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if the New Covenant does everything that it does plus more, which is what it means to make something obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). So the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10), plus it is based on better promise and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).
Exodus 33

13 Now therefore, if I have found favor in your sight, please show me your way, now, that I may know you, so that I may find favor in your sight; and consider that this nation is your people.”
14 He said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”
15 Moses said to him, “If your presence doesn’t go with me, don’t carry us up from here.
16 For how would people know that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Isn’t it that you go with us, so that we are separated, I and your people, from all the people who are on the surface of the earth?”
17 The LORD said to Moses, “I will do this thing also that you have spoken; for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.”

Leviticus 24
8 Every Sabbath day he shall set it in order before the LORD continually. It is an everlasting covenant on the behalf of the children of Israel.

Hebrews 8
13 In that he says, “A new covenant”, he has made the first obsolete. But that which is becoming obsolete and grows aged is near to vanishing away.

Please quote the verses you reference instead of only giving the chapter and verse numbers.
 

Soyeong

Active member
Oct 11, 2023
771
93
28
#46
Um, no. "Torah" is instructions the Jews were obligated to follow, under penalty of death. That sounds like law to me.

You're making assumptions, which carry no evidentiary weight.
There is clear evidence in the Bible that God has given instructions without it being directly recorded when God gave them, which is not making assumptions.

Not at all. One has faith in God and acts on His instructions.
In Psalms 19:7, it states that the Torah is trustworthy, so we can trust it, and by trusting God's word we are trusting God.
Exactly: you're putting faith in the person, not their instructions. You would merely be following their instructions.
We can see that someone is trustworthy by seeing that they have given trustworthy instructions, we see that someone is wise by seeing that they have given wise instructions, and so forth, so the traits of the instructions match the traits of the person who gave them, which is why the Bible often uses the same terms to describe the traits of God as it does to describe the traits of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the Torah (Matthew 23:23).

Yes, but again, there is a distinction between having faith and following instructions. I have faith that God will raise me after my physical death, but that is not faith in any instructions.
Faith without works is dead. Someone does not have faith if it has no impact on the way that they choose to live, and if someone's faith does impact the way that they live, then instructions can be given in that regard for the way to have faith.

"Faithfulness" is a better translation here. They do not mean quite the same thing.
Faith/faithfulness both refer to the same value and Matthew 23:23 is not any less factual regardless of which word is used. Someone who goes through the motions of obeying God's law without expressing faith is neglecting one of the weightier matters of the law and is thereby missing the goal of the law. Translating it as "faith" is in line with the other verses that I cited.

Wrong. The way to demonstrate that you have faith is by works. All of these verses teach that.
Being an obeyer of God's instructions is the way to have faith in God to correctly divide between right and wrong.
 

Soyeong

Active member
Oct 11, 2023
771
93
28
#47
How did you observe it? Did you reside in temporary shelter for 7 days?
I built a sukkah and dwelt in it for seven days. I ate all of my meals in a sukkah and had festive meals in them with my community. I also waved a lulav.

Exodus 33

13 Now therefore, if I have found favor in your sight, please show me your way, now, that I may know you, so that I may find favor in your sight; and consider that this nation is your people.”
14 He said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”
15 Moses said to him, “If your presence doesn’t go with me, don’t carry us up from here.
16 For how would people know that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Isn’t it that you go with us, so that we are separated, I and your people, from all the people who are on the surface of the earth?”
17 The LORD said to Moses, “I will do this thing also that you have spoken; for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.”

Leviticus 24
8 Every Sabbath day he shall set it in order before the LORD continually. It is an everlasting covenant on the behalf of the children of Israel.

Hebrews 8
13 In that he says, “A new covenant”, he has made the first obsolete. But that which is becoming obsolete and grows aged is near to vanishing away.

Please quote the verses you reference instead of only giving the chapter and verse numbers.
My posts would get too long if I quoted every chapter and verse. While we both no doubt affirm that the Bible is true, we have different understandings of how it should be interpreted, so it is far more important for people to speak about what we think a verse means so that we can discuss how to correctly understand it. For instance, people commonly interpret Hebrews 8:13 saying that the New Covenant has made the Mosaic Covenant obsolete as meaning that the Mosaic Law is obsolete even though Hebrews 8:10 says that the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts.
 
E

evyaniy

Guest
#48
I built a sukkah and dwelt in it for seven days. I ate all of my meals in a sukkah and had festive meals in them with my community. I also waved a lulav.



My posts would get too long if I quoted every chapter and verse. While we both no doubt affirm that the Bible is true, we have different understandings of how it should be interpreted, so it is far more important for people to speak about what we think a verse means so that we can discuss how to correctly understand it. For instance, people commonly interpret Hebrews 8:13 saying that the New Covenant has made the Mosaic Covenant obsolete as meaning that the Mosaic Law is obsolete even though Hebrews 8:10 says that the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts.
You quoted Psalm 119 a number of times. Whose prayer is Psalm 119?
 

Soyeong

Active member
Oct 11, 2023
771
93
28
#49
Sorry, I messed up the quotes on post #46.

Um, no. "Torah" is instructions the Jews were obligated to follow, under penalty of death. That sounds like law to me.
Our obligation to obey God's instructions is why people commonly translate "Torah" as "law", though its purpose is to instruct us how to testify about God's character by walking in God's way.

You're making assumptions, which carry no evidentiary weight.
There is clear evidence in the Bible that God has given instructions without it being directly recorded when God gave them, which is not making assumptions.

Not at all. One has faith in God and acts on His instructions.
In Psalms 19:7, it states that the Torah is trustworthy, so we can trust it, and by trusting God's word we are trusting God.

Exactly: you're putting faith in the person, not their instructions. You would merely be following their instructions.
We can see that someone is trustworthy by seeing that they have given trustworthy instructions, we see that someone is wise by seeing that they have given wise instructions, and so forth, so the traits of the instructions match the traits of the person who gave them, which is why the Bible often uses the same terms to describe the traits of God as it does to describe the traits of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the Torah (Matthew 23:23).

Yes, but again, there is a distinction between having faith and following instructions. I have faith that God will raise me after my physical death, but that is not faith in any instructions.
Faith without works is dead. Someone does not have faith if it has no impact on the way that they choose to live, and if someone's faith does impact the way that they live, then instructions can be given in that regard for the way to have faith.

"Faithfulness" is a better translation here. They do not mean quite the same thing.
Faith/faithfulness both refer to the same value and Matthew 23:23 is not any less factual regardless of which word is used. Someone who goes through the motions of obeying God's law without expressing faith is neglecting one of the weightier matters of the law and is thereby missing the goal of the law. Translating it as "faith" is in line with the other verses that I cited.

Wrong. The way to demonstrate that you have faith is by works. All of these verses teach that.
Being an obeyer of God's instructions is the way to have faith in God to correctly divide between right and wrong.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,783
13,414
113
#51
Sorry, I messed up the quotes on post #46.
No worries... it happens to all of us at times.

Our obligation to obey God's instructions is why people commonly translate "Torah" as "law", though its purpose is to instruct us how to testify about God's character by walking in God's way.
Don't confuse the issue by conflating the Law as given through Moses at Sinai with all the other "instructions" that God has given His people. The Law was given to Israel, NOT to the Gentiles. Christians are not under the Law. If you think otherwise, then you must stone adulterers and take your tithe to the priests at the temple.

Good luck with that.


There is clear evidence in the Bible that God has given instructions without it being directly recorded when God gave them, which is not making assumptions.
While I'm not arguing your specific point, God's followers will not be held accountable to "instructions" that aren't recorded in Scripture. If you teach that people must follow such "instructions", you are opening the door to all kinds of pseudo-biblical hogwash like that the Pharisees were guilty of teaching.


In Psalms 19:7, it states that the Torah is trustworthy, so we can trust it, and by trusting God's word we are trusting God.
Trust and faith are not the same thing. They are related, not synonymous.


Faith without works is dead. Someone does not have faith if it has no impact on the way that they choose to live, and if someone's faith does impact the way that they live, then instructions can be given in that regard for the way to have faith.
Which does not equate to having faith in the instructions themselves.


Faith/faithfulness both refer to the same value
No, they do not. Though the words are distantly related, they no longer have a close meaning.

Faith has a biblical definition: the certainty of what we do not see, per Hebrews 11:1. Faithfulness is remaining in a state of commitment, aka fidelity or loyalty. I am faithful to my wife, but that does not involve 'having faith in' my wife; it means acting consistently with the commitment I made to her.


and Matthew 23:23 is not any less factual regardless of which word is used. Someone who goes through the motions of obeying God's law without expressing faith is neglecting one of the weightier matters of the law and is thereby missing the goal of the law. Translating it as "faith" is in line with the other verses that I cited.
You're making an argument based on your understanding of the terms without having demonstrated that your understanding of the terms is sound. That's a circular argument.


Being an obeyer of God's instructions is the way to have faith in God to correctly divide between right and wrong.
No.

One has faith in God by believing in what He promised. One demonstrates that faith by acting consistently with His instructions. The belief comes first, followed by actions.
 

Soyeong

Active member
Oct 11, 2023
771
93
28
#52
No worries... it happens to all of us at times.


Don't confuse the issue by conflating the Law as given through Moses at Sinai with all the other "instructions" that God has given His people. The Law was given to Israel, NOT to the Gentiles. Christians are not under the Law. If you think otherwise, then you must stone adulterers and take your tithe to the priests at the temple.

Good luck with that.
All followers of God should seek by faith to walk in God's way in accordance with Christ's example regardless of whether they are a Jew or a Gentile. In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that went up out of Egypt with the Israelites, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai, and in John 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both foreigners and the native born, so Israel has always been inclusive of Gentiles who seek by faith to walk in His way in obedience to His law. God's law was given to Israel in order to equip them to be a light and a blessing to the nations by teaching them to walk in God's way in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel. Christians are followers of Christ and Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey God's law by word and by example in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel.

Christ gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins, so it would be unjust to enforce a penalty that has already been paid. Laws in regard to temple practice should only be followed when there is a temple in which to practice them.

While I'm not arguing your specific point, God's followers will not be held accountable to "instructions" that aren't recorded in Scripture. If you teach that people must follow such "instructions", you are opening the door to all kinds of pseudo-biblical hogwash like that the Pharisees were guilty of teaching.
The God of Israel has given instructions for how to walk in His way that are available to anyone who wants to repent and become His follower that in accordance with believing the Gospel, but people can't follow him while refusing to walk in His way. Jesus set a sinless example for how to follow of how to walk in God's way, so he was much more zealous for God's law than the Pharisees were and he never criticized them for obeying it, but he did criticize them for not obeying it or for not obeying it correctly.

Trust and faith are not the same thing. They are related, not synonymous.
Faith/Faithfulness

“These terms refer to the value of reliability. The value is ascribed to persons as well as to objects and qualities. Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal relations: it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal faithfulness. The nouns ‘faith’, ‘belief’, ‘fidelity’, ‘faithfulness,’ as well as the verbs ‘to have faith’ and ‘to believe,’ refers to the social glue that binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. As a social bond, it works with the value of (personal and group) attachment (translated ‘love’) and the value of (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated ‘hope.’) p. 72 Pilch and Malina Handbook of Biblical Social Values.

Which does not equate to having faith in the instructions themselves.
It does mean that there is a direct connection between having faith and the way that we act, and instructions are in regard to the way that we act.

No, they do not. Though the words are distantly related, they no longer have a close meaning.

Faith has a biblical definition: the certainty of what we do not see, per Hebrews 11:1. Faithfulness is remaining in a state of commitment, aka fidelity or loyalty. I am faithful to my wife, but that does not involve 'having faith in' my wife; it means acting consistently with the commitment I made to her.
The Greek word pistis is translated as "faith" or "faithfulness". We put our faith in those that we consider to be faithful and are faithful to those who put their faith in us by the way that we act. Every example of faith in Hebrews 11 is an example of works.

You're making an argument based on your understanding of the terms without having demonstrated that your understanding of the terms is sound. That's a circular argument.
It is not circular to point out that both faith and faithfulness are weightier matters of the law, so either translation is factual. Likewise, it is not circular to point out that faith being one of the weightier matters of the law is consistent with other verses that connect our faith with our obedience to it.

No.

One has faith in God by believing in what He promised. One demonstrates that faith by acting consistently with His instructions. The belief comes first, followed by actions.
The way to believe what God has promised is by acting consistently with His instructions because what he has promised is in regard to the way that we act. In Psalms 119:1-3, God's law is how the children of Israel knew how to be blessed by walking in God's way, and in John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him, so the way that the children and Abraham are multiplied and are a blessing to the nations in accordance with inheriting the promise through faith is by turning the nations from their wickedness and teaching them how to walk in God's way in obedience to His law in accordance with spreading the Gospel.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,424
113
#53
Every word of scripture is absolute truth. It is true that God never changes, so the OT is true and so is the NT.

Matt. 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Yet the rest of Matt. 5 tells how Christ changed the law. Every law God gives us is true, but there is a difference in that law from the OT. If you study the law as given, you see it is explained to us in the OT in fleshly terms, it is in spiritual term in the NT. Murder is changed from killing flesh to a spiritual command. Circumcision is no longer a physical cutting of flesh, it is of the spirit, etc.
 

Soyeong

Active member
Oct 11, 2023
771
93
28
#54
Every word of scripture is absolute truth. It is true that God never changes, so the OT is true and so is the NT.

Matt. 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Yet the rest of Matt. 5 tells how Christ changed the law. Every law God gives us is true, but there is a difference in that law from the OT. If you study the law as given, you see it is explained to us in the OT in fleshly terms, it is in spiritual term in the NT. Murder is changed from killing flesh to a spiritual command. Circumcision is no longer a physical cutting of flesh, it is of the spirit, etc.
In Psalms 119142, God's righteousness is eternal and His law is truth, and in Psalms 119:160, the sum of God's word is truth and all of God's righteous laws are eternal, so truth does not change. Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law and warned against relaxing the least part of it, so you should not interpret the rest of Matthew 5 as Jesus proceeding to do that. When Jesus directly quoted from what was written in Scripture in Matthew 4, he preceded it by saying "it is written..." but when he was quoting from what the people had heard being said in Matthew 5, he proceeded it by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different form of communication is important. Jesus was not sinning in violation Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to the law, but rather he was fulfilling it by making corrections to what the people had heard being taught and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it should be.

For example, in Leviticus 19:17, it instructs not to get angry with our brother, so that was not a change. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 10:12-16, God instructed to obey His law and to circumcise our hearts, and 30:6, it prophesies about a time when the Israelites would return from exile, God would circumcise hearts, and they would return to obedience to His law, so again that is not a change.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,783
13,414
113
#55
All followers of God should seek by faith to walk in God's way in accordance with Christ's example regardless of whether they are a Jew or a Gentile.
Let's unpack your sentence and examine it:

"All followers of God... regardless of whether they are a Jew or a Gentile" those terms are no longer relevant. They certainly were in biblical times though, but we need to use them in that context and not try to apply the biblical context today.

"should seek by faith"... what does this even mean? Seek by faith? I seek by looking, or in this context, by striving.

"to walk in God's way"... and what, exactly, to you mean by this?

"in accordance with Christ's example"... Jesus walked on water, healed people by spitting on them, and drove demons out with a word of rebuke. He had no place to lay His head, never married nor had children, never held a job, etc. Just which parts do you think we should take as exemplars? Let's be perfectly clear: Jesus DID NOT call His followers to do what He did; He told them to tell others about Him.

In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that went up out of Egypt with the Israelites, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai
Yes... this is a canard commonly employed by people who don't understand the exclusive nature of the Sinai covenant. That there was a "mixed multitude" is essentially irrelevant. The covenant was between God and Israel.

and in John 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both foreigners and the native born, so Israel has always been inclusive of Gentiles who seek by faith to walk in His way in obedience to His law.
No, God has always been inclusive. Israel definitely has not, despite God's instruction on the matter. The whole avoidance of Samaritans was evidence of that.

Christians are followers of Christ and Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey God's law by word and by example in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel.
With respect, you seem confused about the distinction between Law and Gospel. The Gospel is not, "Follow the Law and God will accept you."

Laws in regard to temple practice should only be followed when there is a temple in which to practice them.
Really? Where is that in Scripture?

The God of Israel has given instructions for how to walk in His way that are available to anyone who wants to repent and become His follower that in accordance with believing the Gospel, but people can't follow him while refusing to walk in His way.
And those "instructions" are not the Law given at Sinai or reiterated in Deuteronomy.

Jesus set a sinless example for how to follow of how to walk in God's way, so he was much more zealous for God's law than the Pharisees were and he never criticized them for obeying it, but he did criticize them for not obeying it or for not obeying it correctly.
Relevance?

Faith/Faithfulness

“These terms refer to the value of reliability. The value is ascribed to persons as well as to objects and qualities. Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal relations: it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal faithfulness. The nouns ‘faith’, ‘belief’, ‘fidelity’, ‘faithfulness,’ as well as the verbs ‘to have faith’ and ‘to believe,’ refers to the social glue that binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. As a social bond, it works with the value of (personal and group) attachment (translated ‘love’) and the value of (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated ‘hope.’) p. 72 Pilch and Malina Handbook of Biblical Social Values.
I'll take a biblical definition and common understanding over the words of some commentators I've never heard of.

It does mean that there is a direct connection between having faith and the way that we act, and instructions are in regard to the way that we act.
No argument there.

The Greek word pistis is translated as "faith" or "faithfulness". We put our faith in those that we consider to be faithful and are faithful to those who put their faith in us by the way that we act.
That's both unnecessarily convoluted and inconsistent with biblical faith.

The way to believe what God has promised is by acting consistently with His instructions
No! That's salvation by works, a heretical corruption of the biblical gospel.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,783
13,414
113
#56
Every word of scripture is absolute truth.
And hyperbolic statements are usually very easy to refute.

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.

You might want to consider the implications of your words before posting them. ;)
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,424
113
#57
Every word of scripture is absolute truth. It is true that God never changes, so the OT is true and so is the NT.

Matt. 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Yet the rest of Matt. 5 tells how Christ changed the law. Every law God gives us is true, but there is a difference in that law from the OT. If you study the law as given, you see it is explained to us in the OT in fleshly terms, it is in spiritual term in the NT. Murder is changed from killing flesh to a spiritual command. Circumcision is no longer a physical cutting of flesh, it is of the spirit, etc.
As you have so nicely explained, although there were fleshly symbols of the law in the OT, the true law of God has always been of the spirit.
 

Soyeong

Active member
Oct 11, 2023
771
93
28
#58
As you have so nicely explained, although there were fleshly symbols of the law in the OT, the true law of God has always been of the spirit.
God's law is spiritual in that the physical examples have always been intended to teach us spiritual principles that are aspects of God's nature/fruits of the Spirit, but that doesn't mean that they aren't God's true law. For instance, God could graciously teach us 100 examples of how to testify about His righteousness in various situations that could help us to understand a spiritual principle of righteousness that all of those examples have in common, which leads us to take physical actions that testify about God's righteousness that are in accordance with those 100 examples even in situations that are not listed as one of those examples. Correctly understanding a spiritual principle will never lead us away from taking physical actions that are examines of it, so if someone would be missing the point if they thought that they understood the spiritual principe of love and therefore no longer needed to physically obey God's command to love their neighbor.
 

SilverFox7

Well-known member
Dec 24, 2022
520
358
63
Grand Rapids, Michigan
#59
God is good all of the time, but many read otherwise when the commandments rub them the wrong way
Yes. People have a hard time seeing the complete character of our God. He is a merciful and compassionate Creator for sure, yet God is also filled with justice and Holiness--sin is unacceptable bottom line. And, that "sternness" as some may call it is necessary. If God dealt with us with grace alone, we as a race would run wild in excess as we have pretty much proven during our entire 6000 or so years of "civilized" and documented human existence.

We are a trainwreck apart from our loving and holy God.
 

Soyeong

Active member
Oct 11, 2023
771
93
28
#60
Let's unpack your sentence and examine it:

"All followers of God... regardless of whether they are a Jew or a Gentile" those terms are no longer relevant. They certainly were in biblical times though, but we need to use them in that context and not try to apply the biblical context today.
My point was that being a Jew or a Gentile is not revenant to whether followers of God should seek by faith to walk in His way. However, Paul did not say that being a Jew or a Gentile is no longer recant, just that it doesn't give someone a higher status when it comes to being in Christ.

"should seek by faith"... what does this even mean? Seek by faith? I seek by looking, or in this context, by striving.
Seeking is about having the goal of doing something while seeking by faith is about trusting in God that we have the correct goal, namely that we ought to walk in God's way.

"to walk in God's way"... and what, exactly, to you mean by this?
God's way is the way that God expresses aspects of His character, such as righteousness and justice (Genesis 18:19).

"in accordance with Christ's example"... Jesus walked on water, healed people by spitting on them, and drove demons out with a word of rebuke. He had no place to lay His head, never married nor had children, never held a job, etc. Just which parts do you think we should take as exemplars? Let's be perfectly clear: Jesus DID NOT call His followers to do what He did; He told them to tell others about Him.

Walking in God's way in accordance with Christ's example is about testifying about aspects of God's character as taught us how to do, such as by doing righteousness and justice, not about things like wearing robes and sandals. The goal of a disciple was to come under a rabbi in order to learn how to walk in God's way by memorizing their teachings and copying their example and we see this line of thought expressed in verses like 1 Peter 2:21-22, where we are told to follow Christ's example of refraining from sin, in 1 John 2:6, where those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, and 1 Corinthians 11:1, where Paul instructed us to be imitators of him as he is an imitator of Christ. It is contradictory for you to claim that Jesus did not call his followers to do what he did because following him means doing what he did. The Son is the exact image of God's character (Hebrews 1:3), so he expressed traits like righteousness and justified by walking in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so by leading people to follow his example in accordance with spreading the Gospel we are telling others about him.

Yes... this is a canard commonly employed by people who don't understand the exclusive nature of the Sinai covenant. That there was a "mixed multitude" is essentially irrelevant. The covenant was between God and Israel.
While the covenant was inclusively between God and Israel and Israel is inclusive of Gentiles should have faith in the God of Israel. In Jeremiah 31:31, the New Covenant was only made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel, so it is only through becoming joined to Israel through faith in Christ that Gentiles are able to partake of the New Covenant.

No, God has always been inclusive. Israel definitely has not, despite God's instruction on the matter. The whole avoidance of Samaritans was evidence of that.
The point is still that Gentiles become part of Israel through faith in the God of Israel regardless of the attitude that some Jews have had towards Gentiles and vice versa.

With respect, you seem confused about the distinction between Law and Gospel. The Gospel is not, "Follow the Law and God will accept you."
In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message.

Really? Where is that in Scripture?
The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that can't currently be followed. When the Israelites were exiled to Babylon the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to the Mosaic Law, which contained instructions in regard to temple practice that couldn't be followed because the temple had just been destroyed, so God nevertheless honored their obedience to the laws that they could obey.

And those "instructions" are not the Law given at Sinai or reiterated in Deuteronomy.
There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being God's way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Psalms 103:7, Psalms 119:1-3, and many others.

Relevance?
You connected teaching to following God's instructions with what the Pharisees were guilty of doing, but the problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees was never that they were teaching people to obey God's instructions.

I'll take a biblical definition and common understanding over the words of some commentators I've never heard of.
That definition is in accordance with the biblical definition.

That's both unnecessarily convoluted and inconsistent with biblical faith.
Someone's trustworthiness is shown by them acting in accordance with the truth that I have placed in them just as someone's faithfulness is shown by then acting in according with the faith that I have placed in them. This is pretty straightforward and is in accordance with the biblical definition.

No! That's salvation by works, a heretical corruption of the biblical gospel.
In Acts 3:25-26, Jesus was set in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness, so again being turned from our wickedness is the way to believe in the promise, which is not salvation by works. Salvation by works is the position that we need to have first done a certain amount of works in order to earn our salvation as the result.