Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | bubbatate | 53892 | ||
Continued from above: Do the teachings of the LORD (Torah) ever become obsolete? If so, then LORD is obsolete. Are they on the cafeteria plan where you can just pick the ones you like and leave the rest? Were the teachings weak, faulty and too difficult and had to be replaced?…..if so then the LORD is weak, faulty and He expects way too much. Frankly, I think that speaking against the LORD’s teachings (Torah) is blasphemy and refusing to live by any or all of them is presumptuous sin which is defined as wickedness. Look at your statement, “. Regenerated people (saints) have two natures, one carnal and the other spiritual. The carnal (old man) is a slave to sin. The spiritual man a slave to righteousness (new creature). We are to consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ. In other words, because our righteousness is by faith and not by works. Therefore (in Christ) we have an imputed righteousness and the keeping of the law was "fullfiled" by Him.” For one thing, since you chose to use the word “saints”, look at how Rev 14:12 defines “saints”…..”the saints…obey God's commandments AND remain faithful to Y’shua.” Where do you find God’s commandments? Hmmmmmm? How many of them are operative for these saints? Are the regenerated “saints” of which you speak obeying the commandments of God (works)…..or is it faith in Jesus only that qualifies them for sainthood? Notice the word “AND” in 14:12,…..it is not “either/or”. Now analyze your statement, “Therefore (in Christ) we have an imputed righteousness and the keeping of the law was "fullfiled" by Him.” (I’m assuming that you mean the same as that popular Christian teaching, “We don’t have to do the Torah because Jesus did it for us.”) Again, put the words “the teachings of the LORD” in place of “law”. What then does your statement mean? What actually does Y’shua’s claim that He came to fulfill the Torah mean? If you will look up the word “fulfill”, you’ll see it means to fill in a hole. Therefore, what did Y’shua do in coming to fulfill the Torah? He came to further expounded upon the LORD’s teachings to correct a lot of misunderstandings and misapplications, i.e. to fill In the holes. Now, Christianity isn’t just misapplying Torah….she’s completely thrown it out….in which case she’s even worse than a Pharisee. As for your closing question, “Do you believe that keeping the Torah contributes in any way to "justification"?” Well let’s see: Ro 2:13 “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Ja 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” MT 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (I’m assuming that the Torah [teaching] of the Father is the expression of His will; please correct me if I’m wrong.) My answer to your question is thereby a definite “you betcha!”. Singing the Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb…….Bub |
||||||
2 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | srbaegon | 53896 | ||
Hello Bub "As for your closing question, 'Do you believe that keeping the Torah contributes in any way to "justification"?' Well let’s see: Ro 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." This is an invalid use. You have already stated that the law was what the Pharisees had put in place and was common use of life at the time. Paul being a Pharisee would have had the same understanding. Therefore, by your own reasoning, this "law" has nothing to do with Torah. Steve |
||||||
3 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | bubbatate | 53899 | ||
Dear Steve………… You just don’t get it do you??????????? Torah (translated “law”) means “teaching”…..it can be anybody’s teaching unless it is clear through the examination of the context whose teachings are being referred to….are you with me so far, Steve? When Paul is speaking NEGATIVELY about the “law”…….is it conceivable that he was speaking of the teachings of his LORD? God forbid! My point was, he must have been referring to someone else’s teaching when he was speaking AGAINST the “law” for he surely would not speak against a “thus saith the LORD”. I apologize for having poor communication skills. Singing the song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb……..Bub |
||||||
4 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 53900 | ||
Paul never spoke NEGATIVELY about the "law." He understood it perfectly: its intended purposes, and what it is not able to do. Not once, however, does he speak ill of the Law. With all due respect, it is you who does not "get it." You make the opposite mistake of those who say that the law of God has no use for the Christian, in that you want to make the commands and ordinances tied solely to the Old Covenant applicable to those who were never part of that covenant community. Both views are in error by failing to see that God's moral commandments regarding righteous behavior, while contained in the Law of Moses, transcend the Law as well. As such, you are arguing past each other, and neither one of you can address my support of God's moral law and the acknowledgement that the sacrificial and ceremonial laws have passed away with the Old Covenant. Neither your view nor the antinomian view is supported by the whole counsel of God. --Joe! |
||||||