Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 125884 | ||
"Not an iota...will pass from the Law." Country Girl: I am glad to hear you say we should comply with or obey all the commands of the NT, including those nine commandments carried over from the OT. Not one word of the Bible is disposable. I do not see any portion of the NT as disposable. Neither do I see any portion of the OT as disposable. Jesus said: "not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law." Matthew 5:17-19 (ESV) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [18] For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. [19] Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
2 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Country Girl | 125886 | ||
I just remembered one more tidbit of explanation. Quoted from your post: Matthew 5:17-19 (ESV) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [18] For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Here I would key in on the phrase "until all is accomplished." I've been taught to believe that this was Christ's mission: to come to the earth, live the Perfect Sinless Life and offer His body as a Sacrifice for our sins and take the OT with Him to His Grave. Thus upon accomplishing that great and noble deed, the OT no longer existed as far as God was concerned but Christ's Law of Liberty was executed in accordance with His Last Will and Testament on that day at Pentacost, Acts Chapter 2. So there's another question for you to reconcile with your position. If this is not what Christ meant with that phrase; what WAS to be accomplished and do away with the Law and the Prophets? Blessings to you. Country Girl |
||||||
3 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | following him | 125892 | ||
Country Girl Christ has not fulfilled all the OT. There are far more prophecies in the OT about His second coming than there are of His first by about 8:1. And since He has not returned yet He has not accomplished all. The OT is still as valid and vital today as it ever was. Blessings to you |
||||||
4 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 125897 | ||
The Old Testament is gone. God found fault with the first covenant and replaced it with a better covenant, established upon better promises. This new covenant is in the heart and mind, not on paper, and the Old is decayed and ready to vanish. Galatians 3:30 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. ... Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman will not be heir with the son of the freewoman.(Galatians 4:21-31) Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect to you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace. 1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. We are not under the Old law. This is scriptural. The Old is gone, the New is in. If the Old has not passed, then we can't have a New, merely an ammendment to the Existing. Theo-Minor |
||||||
5 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 125907 | ||
'Is the Law altogether invalid? Matt 5:19' If the Old Testament is gone, then why are you still carrying it around with you? That is, assuming you carry the entire Bible, and not just a copy of the New Testament. If the Old Testament is gone, then perhaps you should go through your New Testament and white out all the OT quotations. AMPLIFIED Matthew 5:19 Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. The Law under the New Covenant. 'The law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability. "All Scripture is … useful" (2 Tim 3:16-17), including Old Testament laws. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). 'When Paul states that women are to be in submission "as the Law says" (1 Cor 14:34) or quotes parts of the Decalogue (Rom 13:9), and 'when James quotes the law of love (2:8 from Lev 19:18) or condemns partiality, adultery, murder, and slander as contrary to the law (2:9, 11; 4:11), and 'when Peter quotes Leviticus, "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; from Lev 19:2), 'the implication is that the law, or at least part of it, remains authoritative. (...) 'The New Testament writers also apply the principles in the law. 'From Deuteronomy 25:4 ("Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out grain"), Paul derives a principle that workers ought to be rewarded for their labors and applies that principle in the case of Christian workers (1 Cor 9:9-14). 'In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul again quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, this time in parallel with a saying of Jesus (Matt 10:10) as if both are equally authoritative. 'Likewise, the principle of establishing truth by two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15), originally limited to courts, is applied more broadly to a church conference (2 Cor 13:1). 'The principle that believers are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers is derived from a law concerning the yoking of animals (2 Cor 6:14; cf. Deut 22:10). 'In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 13, Paul affirms on the basis of Leviticus 18:29 that incest, a capital offense in the Old Testament, is immoral and deserves punishment. A person practicing incest in the church must be excommunicated to maintain the church's practical holiness. Paul maintains the law's moral principle, yet in view of the changed redemptive setting, makes no attempt to apply the law's original sanction.' ____________________ Bibliography. G. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics; W. S. Barker and W. R. Godfrey, eds., Theonomy: A Reformed Critique; H. J. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus; D. A. Dorsey, JETS 34/3 (Sept. 1991): 321-34; H.-H. Esser, NIDNTT2:438-51; M. Greenberg, Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, pp. 3-28; idem, Studies in Bible: 1986, pp. 3-28; idem, Religion and Law, pp. 101-12, 120-25; H. W. House and T. Ice, Dominion Theology: A Blessing or a Curse?; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics; idem, JETS33/3 (Sept. 1990): 289-302; G. E. Mendenhall, Religion and Law, pp. 85-100; Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law; V. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses; R. J. Rushdooney, The Institutes of Biblical Law; R. Sonsino, Judaism33 (1984): 202-9; J. Sprinkle, A Literary Approach to Biblical Law: Exodus 20:22-23:19. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1996 by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) matt517 |
||||||
6 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 125916 | ||
No one has yet to truly dispute anything I've said. Throwing out passages that contradict does not answer the plain statements. Paul says we are not under the law. Call it Torah if you please, call it Old Testament. It all amounts to the same thing. As someone pointed out, the law identifies sin. If we are under the law, sin is revived and we die. If we are under grace, walking in the spirit of the New Covenant, we will live. You choose as you please, but if you are still subject to the law, you make void the "New" Covenant, and condemn yourselves to judgment. The law we are now subject to is brotherly love. Knit pick over Matthew if you please, but Paul's statements quantify the ramifications of the death and resurrection of Christ. Jesus made his statement while the Old Covenant was still in force. He said that nothing would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. Something has passed from the law. The sacrifices are gone. Laws concerning fasting are gone. Laws concerning traditions are gone. Some of you have mildew in your houses. By the standard of the law, you should burn them down. You can't keep the laws that are convenient and disregard the rest. If you fail in one part, you are a transgressor of the law. If you have mildew in your house, and you refuse to burn it down, then you are being directly disobedient to God, and "habitually" "practicing" sin. Since you are doing this willingly, there is no more sacrifice for you concerning sin. This thing is but one small example amongst many. If you are guilty of even this one small matter, you are a murderer because of the law, and are thereby condemned because no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. If this is what you want, have at it. I challenge any of you to produce a scripture that says we are still under the law following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which event brought in the New and cast out the Old. The Old is good for reference. It is good for instruction to teach the loveless how to love. But we are no longer under a schoolmaster. I am under a New Covenant, established upon better promises, because God found fault with the first one. His laws are now written on my heart and mind. Defy that as you please, but it is plain scripture and coming out of the mouth of God himself. As for sin ... I am a workman approved of God, and I am not ashamed. Sin is not MY master. If sin is yours, I pity you. I am not the one with an interpretation issue. Your rendition of 1 John 1 is paradoxial. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Therefore, confess your sins to God, and he is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. So, because we all have sin, let us pray together and confess. NOW, do we have sin anymore? If you say no, you're a liar and the truth is not in you. If you say yes, then God is a liar, for he was not faithful to do as he said. Jesus came to take away the sins of the world. If we still have sin, then HE FAILED! But for the sake of arguement, let's go ahead and confess again. Maybe THIS TIME he'll forgive and cleanse us. The more reasonable interpretation of 1 John 1 is that it applies to a person that needs to be cleansed, not someone that has already received their cleansing. And now that we are cleansed, we should go and sin no more. Because we have been born of God, we are not able to sin anymore. "Habitually" is an implication derived from a word study that showed 1 John 3:6 was written in a present perfect tense. i.e. "sinning" "Those abiding in God are not sinning." But the syntax of present perfect is that it is happening RIGHT NOW. If you are committing a sin RIGHT NOW, then you are sinNIG. At each moment, we are not committing a sin, and thus not sinning. This is the truth of the matter. This particular scripture would never have been scrutinized if it said, "Those abiding in God are not eating carrots." It defied man's tradition, contradicted fleshly teachings, and thus needed to be adjusted to suit itching ears. To me, it says what it says. If you choose to attribute words like "habitually" to it, that is your option, but no such word exists in the original text. If you are truly abiding in God, you are not sinning (from one moment to the next). If you are, you do not have God. Further, the context suggests precisely what John seems to be saying. Jesus came to take away sins, and in him is no sin. How can we have sin and abide in him when in him is no sin? I've been on both sides of the fence folks. I was an advocate of the law and inherent sin. I have seen the truth of the matter. If you can't see what I see, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to continue typing the same thing over and over again just to have it ignored, criticized, and scrutinized because someone disagrees (but is unable to discredit, only contradict). Theo-Minor |
||||||