Author Topic: Works  (Read 1433 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Works
« Reply #70 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 08:36:29 »
4WD,JTW and Jaime  Paul was right, James was right, Peter was right, Jesus was right,  the Author of Acts was right.  You see we came from a background that actually believes 2 Timothy 3:16,17 while so many others want to pick and choose what is a commandment and what is classified as a work and what is not.  It is scripture that sets the conditions of accepting the free gift of God not what I think or I believe this verse but not this one.
Johnb, I was not suggesting that either Paul, James, Peter or Jesus wasn't right.  The point I am making here is that when Paul says, concerning receiving salvation, "Not by works", he is not saying, "Not by something we do".  Because Jesus clearly said that it is by something we do, i.e, believing.  Actually, Paul also said receiving salvation was by something we do:  ".....because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved... "(Rom 10:9-10).

One can try to argue [wrongly] that believing with the heart is not really something we do, but there is no way to argue that confessing with the mouth is not something that we do. Clearly Paul is connecting being saved to something we do.
« Last Edit: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 08:39:31 by 4WD »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Works
« Reply #70 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 08:36:29 »

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35634
  • Manna: 776
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Works
« Reply #71 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 08:38:25 »
What is being said by 4WD and scripture as a whole is that it is not grace vs works. It’s not a matter of being “better”. James said it is NOT by faith alone. Faith without works is dead. The topic here is what IS works in this context. Not a pitting of grace vs faith.
« Last Edit: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 09:03:02 by Jaime »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Works
« Reply #72 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 08:46:14 »
I was talking about what you say my ignorance about "works" not about grace. And I was talking about my discussion about grace.

You said:
... as you wanted for me to take my ignorance and discussion about grace...

I expressed no such want.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Works
« Reply #72 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 08:46:14 »

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12390
  • Manna: 218
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #73 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 11:36:13 »
4WD. I think we are in agreement.  None of the biblical writers are wrong.  It is not grace vs works .  It is a matter of understanding what was said in context.  When one takes an all grace or grace plus works both are wrong.  It never fails to amaze me how folks split hairs on grace and change what God has said to do into works and against grace.  Some classify baptism as a work even though you do nothing while someone else does the work. Some make repentance as something done after or because of salvation.  While the true Calvinist thinks even belief is a work and is given by God.  The whole thing seems silly to me . Why not just do what we are told in scripture and let God sort it out.  Guess me seeing most so called theological discussions as vain and silly and that is why I seldom post on theology any more.  No views changed each believe their views and proof text are the right ones.  I will go back into hiding now.  Bye

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Works
« Reply #73 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 11:36:13 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Works
« Reply #74 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 11:48:50 »
4WD. I think we are in agreement.  None of the biblical writers are wrong.  It is not grace vs works .  It is a matter of understanding what was said in context.  When one takes an all grace or grace plus works both are wrong.  It never fails to amaze me how folks split hairs on grace and change what God has said to do into works and against grace.  Some classify baptism as a work even though you do nothing while someone else does the work. Some make repentance as something done after or because of salvation.  While the true Calvinist thinks even belief is a work and is given by God.  The whole thing seems silly to me . Why not just do what we are told in scripture and let God sort it out.  Guess me seeing most so called theological discussions as vain and silly and that is why I seldom post on theology any more.  No views changed each believe their views and proof text are the right ones.  I will go back into hiding now.  Bye
I understand what you are saying about most theological discussions.  However, if you take that to the limit then either (1) you stop all discussions with anyone about theology, the gospel and God or (2) you speak out only once you know that you are speaking with someone that agrees with you on everything bout theology, the gospel and God.  It is not possible to have open discussions about God and the gospel without having theological discussions.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Works
« Reply #74 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 11:48:50 »



Online GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Manna: 9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #75 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 12:02:40 »
What is being said by 4WD and scripture as a whole is that it is not grace vs works. It’s not a matter of being “better”. James said it is NOT by faith alone. Faith without works is dead. The topic here is what IS works in this context. Not a pitting of grace vs faith.

Absolutely, what is the context, why did Paul even have to bring it up? Who was telling folks that there were "works" necessary for Salvation and what were these "works"?

This is why, in my view, it is important to understand how sins were atoned for prior to the advent of the New High Priest, the New Covenant.

A religious system was already in place which provided for the atonement of sins according to the Holy Scriptures. This religious system was for centuries, the only God of Abraham preaching religion which existed on the planet.This is just a Biblical truth.

 It is true these same scriptures spoke of a time when God Himself would take over these Priesthood duties, that is, to administer God's Words, and provide for the atonement of sins. (Jer. 31:31) But the religious leaders of this religious system, which was already in place, didn't believe these Words pertained to Jesus, and were still performing the "Works of the Law" for remission of sins, given to the Levites on Israel's behalf, and were still promoting their version of this system.

So knowing this, I see no contradiction between what the Law and Prophets taught, what Jesus taught, and what Paul taught. They all taught the exact same thing in my view.

But if a person doesn't consider the religious system that was already in place, that Jesus fought against His whole live, and Paul argued against in every Epistle he wrote, then how can they understand the circumstance Paul was in, or the context of much of his teaching.

Great Topic.



Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Works
« Reply #75 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 12:02:40 »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Works
« Reply #76 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 16:41:54 »
Sorry GB, but I completely reject your ideas on "works of Law".  Works of Law aren't what the priests did for atonement.  Works of Law were what the God's people were commanded to do.   The rituals of atonement administered by the priests were required when they, God's people, disobeyed those commandments.  While those rituals did directly involve the priests, I do not recall anywhere reading that God's approval or acceptance for atonement depended upon the belief, the righteousness or anything else of the priests except that they follow the rules set down.

So again, I reject you view of works of Law.

For what it is worth, even though Paul spoke against the works of law as any requirement for salvation, he did speak about obedience to the gospel as a requirement for salvation.  Perhaps another topic is in order here.
« Last Edit: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 05:35:54 by 4WD »

BTR

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #77 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 17:09:43 »
+1

For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.

But this is what I commanded them, saying, “Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.”
-Jer.7:22,23


And they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifices to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.

Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets:

‘Did you offer Me slaughtered animals and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness,
O house of Israel?
You also took up the tabernacle of Moloch,
And the star of your god Remphan,
Images which you made to worship;
And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.’
-Acts 7:41-43

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12390
  • Manna: 218
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #78 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 19:04:24 »
4WD I work with a lot of different groups to feed the poor and help the addicted don’t have time for a lot of infighting over theological differences.  I usually attend a Friday prayer group where most are preachers and we discuss our differences without the expectation of changing one another mind but learning why we have differences and respecting one another.  I think maturity is accepting one another in spite of our differences.  If we have Jesus in common that is enough. Example on the controversial subject (I don’t know why it is). When we discuss it all agree that Jesus said to do it so we should.  The disagreement comes over why we do it but we are willing to let God sort that out rather than divide over it.
« Last Edit: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 19:08:27 by Johnb »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Works
« Reply #78 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 19:04:24 »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Works
« Reply #79 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 05:47:13 »
I know what you are saying and I don't disagree with you on it.  I actually feel that way even with the folks in my congregation about those things that are not critical salvation issues. For example, most, including the preacher, are YEC, world wide flood, physical death due to Adam's sin, physical body resurrection, and some premillennialist.  On those I just let it be, unless they bring it and make an issue of it. And on some other issues, I think there is considerable confusion in the ranks.  But on soteriology, we are pretty much all in agreement.  I would have a very hard time keeping quiet about any significant issues in any discussion in soteriology.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7535
  • Manna: 369
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Works
« Reply #80 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 06:20:11 »
But on soteriology, we are pretty much all in agreement.  I would have a very hard time keeping quiet about any significant issues in any discussion in soteriology.
I wonder why? There is no doctrine in all of the word of God that stirs up animosity in men than God's absolute sovereignty in the salvation of men from sin and condemnation.
Quote from: JESUS CHRIST
Luke 4:25-29~"But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong."
 
« Last Edit: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 06:37:33 by RB »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Works
« Reply #81 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 06:51:33 »
I wonder why? There is no doctrine in all of the word of God that stirs up animosity in men than God's absolute sovereignty in the salvation of men from sin and condemnation. 
You refuse to accept that God in His absolute sovereignty is free to do whatever He pleases, such as impose a condition upon those that He would save from sin and condemnation.  Why would you think that?  Why do you impose such limits upon God?  And the answer is simply because you incorrectly jargonize the meaning of the God's absolute sovereignty. You change the meaning to fit your theology. 


Online GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Manna: 9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #82 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 08:46:24 »
 author=4WD link=topic=105660.msg1055159372#msg1055159372 date=1585258914]

Quote
Sorry GB, but I completely reject your ideas on "works of Law".  Works of Law aren't what the priests did for atonement.

I'm sorry you reject the "works" required for atonement in the Old Covenant. I have posted them, they are in your Bible. There was no other way for the home born, or the stranger who sojourns among them, to be cleansed of their "transgressions of God's Commandments". There was no other way to be made perfect. There was no other way to be justified, unless you took an offering specifically to a Levite Priest, who would perform "works" according to the Law of Offerings given by God through Moses to them.

I know you reject this Biblical Truth, I just don't know why because you have never offered anything other than your words to support your rejection.

Quote
Works of Law were what the God's people were commanded to do.

Yes, as Paul said in the verse you posted.

Eph. 2:For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

So Yes, God created Commandments that His People are to learn to "walk in", as Paul says here.

Quote
The rituals of atonement administered by the priests were required when they, God's people, disobeyed those commandments.

Yes, absolutely. When a man disobeys the "Good Works" God before ordained that they should walk in, they were required by Law to take an offering specifically to a Levite Priest in order for their trespasses to be forgiven.

These "rituals of Atonement" administered specifically by the Levite Priest, were LAW 4WD. Just because you don't "believe" they were Law, doesn't make void the Word's of God which say they were.

Lev. 6:2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;

So here we are, this man has sinned against God, he has not "Loved his Neighbor as himself" as the Law of God commanded.

So now what? How is this man Justified according to the God of the Bible?

6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:

7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.

So there you are 4WD. The man that breaks God's Command to Love their neighbor as themselves, were to bring a sin offering, by Law, to the Levite Priest.

8 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

9 Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it.

14 And this is the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar.

15 And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the LORD.

16 And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it.

17 It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering.

18 All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations concerning the offerings of the LORD made by fire: every one that toucheth them shall be holy.

Quote
While those rituals did directly involve the priests, I do not recall anywhere reading that God's approval or acceptance for atonement depended upon the belief, the righteousness or anything else of the priests except that they follow the rules set down.

Those "Rituals", (Law of Sin and Trespass offerings, etc.) were Specifically given to the Levite Priest. No other tribe or blood line was allowed to perform any of these duties, under any circumstance, by Law. King Saul was stripped of his title because he didn't wait for the Levite Priest to perform the Priesthood Duties. Uzzah simply tried to steady the Ark of God and was killed when he touched it, because he wasn't a Levite Priest.

 Like killing a Lamb for Passover, these "works of the Law" for atonement of sins were a shadow of things to come. But as the God of the Bible said.

Mal. 2:7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

So these Priests had lost sight of the "shadow", and were still performing "works of the Atonement laws" for the justification, even though the Messiah had already came.

Zechariahs was led to the Christ by this Law, and so was Simeon. But not the Pharisees who had "corrupted the Covenant of Levi".


 You say you have no evidence that God approved or accepted these Priesthood Laws for the Atonement of sins? Then in your religion, who gave them to the Levites?

Quote
So again, I reject you view of works of Law.

But 4WD, your rejection doesn't make void the Word's of God I just posted.


Quote
For what it is worth, even though Paul spoke against the works of law as any requirement for salvation, he did speak about obedience to the gospel as a requirement for salvation.  Perhaps another topic is in order here.

All I wanted to do in replying to this topic of what Paul meant by "Works" regarding "Atonement" is to expose the Elephant in the room. There was an existing religion, which was there for centuries, which still adhered to their version of the "LAW of sin offering" given Specifically to the Tribe of Levi.

You say this Priesthood wasn't a Law separate from the Commandments of God. But as you are so fond of telling others, "You are Wrong".

The Priesthood "Works" for the atonement of sins was a Law, and this Law had to actually be changed before Jesus could become the High Priest. (Heb. 7)

If you close your eyes to these Scriptures, and "reject them", you will never understand what Paul is speaking about when he says, to those who are being bewitched by the Circumcision, "No man is justified by works of the Law".

How you believe you can even have a Biblical discussion about "works" and not include these sacrificial atonement Laws, the Jews were still pushing, is astonishing to me. And why you would you even want to?
 

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Works
« Reply #83 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 09:22:38 »
If you close your eyes to these Scriptures, and "reject them", you will never understand what Paul is speaking about when he says, to those who are being bewitched by the Circumcision, "No man is justified by works of the Law".
GB, the problem was not in any failure of the priesthood.  Clearly if one had completely and perfectly obeyed the Law, then he would obviously have been justified by his obedience, by his doing the "works of the Law"; and that quite apart from anything done, good or bad, by the priests.  The reason that Paul said "No man is justified by works of the Law" had nothing to do with the priesthood, but rather had everything to do with the fact that no man had ever completely and perfectly obeyed the Law; that is except Jesus Christ.

GB, I am not closing my eyes to any Scriptures and I am not rejecting them.  I am rejecting your really bad interpretation of the Scriptures dealing with "Salvation by faith not by works".

Online GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Manna: 9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #84 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 10:48:02 »
GB, the problem was not in any failure of the priesthood.  Clearly if one had completely and perfectly obeyed the Law, then he would obviously have been justified by his obedience, by his doing the "works of the Law"; and that quite apart from anything done, good or bad, by the priests.  The reason that Paul said "No man is justified by works of the Law" had nothing to do with the priesthood, but rather had everything to do with the fact that no man had ever completely and perfectly obeyed the Law; that is except Jesus Christ.

GB, I am not closing my eyes to any Scriptures and I am not rejecting them.  I am rejecting your really bad interpretation of the Scriptures dealing with "Salvation by faith not by works".

I understand what you are saying, and it is generally accepted by many religions. And we do have a different understanding of the scriptures, not on all things, but certainly on this topic.

I have supplied volumes of scriptures which explain why I believe the way I do regarding "works of the law" for justification. But you have provided nothing, accept to say I am in error, because my interpretation differs from yours.

I would be grateful if you could explain why my reasoning and interpretation of the following is incorrect.

Jesus said.

Matt. 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Why were these sheep lost? Who led them Astray? Did the Law of God lead them astray? Or was it the Priesthood which He put in place to administer God's Laws, that led them astray?

You say "the problem was not in any failure of the priesthood".

My goodness 4WD, seriously, how can you make this claim given what the Scriptures tell us.

Jer. 50:6 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace.

Mal. 2:7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

How can I interpret these Word's, and many more, to mean there was "not in any failure of the priesthood"?

Why did God send them Prophets if there was no failure in the Priesthood?

All men have transgressed. So all men are already guilty of sin and in need of atonement or Justification. The Mainstream Religious system of Paul's time, that had been in place for centuries, taught justification, that is, atonement of sins committed, by the performance of their version of a Priesthood given as Law by God exclusively to the Levites. I posted some of the many scriptures which show this.

I just don't know how any discussion about "Works of the Law" for justification of sins can be beneficial if we ignore or reject the religion Paul fought against in every epistle he wrote.

Ironically, the Pharisees also believed they were "not in any failure of the priesthood", and the Priest before them in the Law and Prophets also believed they were "not in any failure of the priesthood". And those who God sent to tell them they were, like the Prophets of old, John the Baptist, Stephen, and Jesus Himself were murdered for daring to suggest these "children of Abraham" were leading folks astray.

You are right about Calvin, and Red's "total Depravity" and have shown in the Scriptures where your understanding stems from.

But for some reason you are blind to the Biblical truth of the religion that Jesus and Paul fought against throughout their lives, and God's Prophets before them.

Heb. 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Anyway, it is a great topic you have opened for discussion. I think it is important to include the "works" for justification that the failed priesthood, the only God of Abraham preaching people on the planet, taught in Jesus and Paul's time.

You don't, so there we are.   


 




Offline Michael2012

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3641
  • Manna: 12
Re: Works
« Reply #85 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 11:18:56 »
There was no other way to be justified, unless you took an offering specifically to a Levite Priest, who would perform "works" according to the Law of Offerings given by God through Moses to them.

ATONEMENT IS NOT JUSTIFICATION.

The OT priests do not perform "works" for justification of the sinner, but for atonement of their sins.

That's doctrine of man.
 
Quote from: GB
So these Priests had lost sight of the "shadow", and were still performing "works of the Atonement laws" for the justification, even though the Messiah had already came.

No such thing as "works of the Atonement laws" for the justification.

That's doctrine of man.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12652
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #86 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 11:20:12 »
I think most of us would answer that Paul did not contradict Jesus.  So then we must conclude... that Paul's using the word works in relation to receiving salvation in Ephesians 2:8-9 and elsewhere in a difference sense than Jesus than Jesus did in John 6:26-29.  It behooves us to understand that difference.
Ephesians 2 gets twisted quite often, doesn't it?

In Ephesians, Paul is addressing the Ephesian church in regards to a problem they were having.  Some members of the church were boasting, propping themselves up as superior or special.  Paul has to knock them down a peg.

To that end, he discusses WHY they were saved in the first place.  Was it because of something they had done (works)?  No.  It was simply God's mercy.  God didn't choose them for salvation because they had done anything extraordinary.

HOW they were saved is completely missing from that conversation.  The Ephesians already knew how they had been saved.  They didn't need Paul to spell that out for them.

Modern believers seem to read this as a formula for HOW salvation happens, and that is wrong.  Not to put too much blame on the reader - part of that is down to the translation.  It turns out, Ephesians uses some funky grammatical constructions in Greek, and it isn't actually possible to render it all into English perfectly.  The translators did their best, but it came out somewhere between ambiguous and misleading (depending what translation you're using).

As for John 6... Jesus is talking about HOW to be saved.  So there's the primary difference, as I see it.

Jarrod

Offline Michael2012

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3641
  • Manna: 12
Re: Works
« Reply #87 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 11:29:25 »
I have supplied volumes of scriptures which explain why I believe the way I do regarding "works of the law" for justification.

No such thing as "works of the law" for justification.

Quote from: GB
All men have transgressed. So all men are already guilty of sin and in need of atonement or Justification. The Mainstream Religious system of Paul's time, that had been in place for centuries, taught justification, that is, atonement of sins committed, by the performance of their version of a Priesthood given as Law by God exclusively to the Levites. I posted some of the many scriptures which show this.

I just don't know how any discussion about "Works of the Law" for justification of sins can be beneficial if we ignore or reject the religion Paul fought against in every epistle he wrote.

Again, there is no such thing as "Works of the Law" for justification of sins.

Also, there is no such thing as JUSTIFICATION OF SINS.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12652
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #88 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 11:39:33 »
Sorry GB, but I completely reject your ideas on "works of Law".  Works of Law aren't what the priests did for atonement.  Works of Law were what the God's people were commanded to do.   The rituals of atonement administered by the priests were required when they, God's people, disobeyed those commandments.  While those rituals did directly involve the priests, I do not recall anywhere reading that God's approval or acceptance for atonement depended upon the belief, the righteousness or anything else of the priests except that they follow the rules set down.

So again, I reject you view of works of Law.
This wasn't written for me, but I'm going to endorse it.  Actually, I think I'm going to go further...

I've come to think of the Levitical priesthood as something separate from the Law.  The priesthood was something added, a little after the law, to compensate for the people's inability to keep the Law.

Consider this argument:

1) The Law has never been abrogated.  Jesus Himself endorsed the Law, saying He did not come to destroy it, and His Sermon on the Mount is largely an expansion/explanation of how to apply the core principles of the Law (Matthew 5).  Paul and James both call the Law "perfect." (Acts 22, James 1)

2) The Levitical priesthood has been annulled, and replaced with a better priesthood (Hebrews 7).

How can both these things be true, if the priesthood is part and parcel of the Law?

Did God exercise some hitherto unknown "line-item veto?"  No... the priesthood was always something separate from the Law.

Jarrod

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Works
« Reply #89 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 12:23:21 »
This wasn't written for me, but I'm going to endorse it.  Actually, I think I'm going to go further...

I've come to think of the Levitical priesthood as something separate from the Law.  The priesthood was something added, a little after the law, to compensate for the people's inability to keep the Law.
Thank you Jarrod, I think that you have stated that or something similar in the past.

 I agree with you about that completely. The law, particularly as Paul commonly used the term, was the system, or law code that one lives by, whether it was the Law of Moses, or a system of laws, rules and regulations established in any other Gentile tribe or nation. That was his point in Romans 2:14. He seldom if ever spoke of THE works of THE law, but rather simply works of law.

+1


Offline Michael2012

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3641
  • Manna: 12
Re: Works
« Reply #90 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 13:23:18 »
This wasn't written for me, but I'm going to endorse it.  Actually, I think I'm going to go further...

I've come to think of the Levitical priesthood as something separate from the Law.  The priesthood was something added, a little after the law, to compensate for the people's inability to keep the Law.

Consider this argument:

1) The Law has never been abrogated.  Jesus Himself endorsed the Law, saying He did not come to destroy it, and His Sermon on the Mount is largely an expansion/explanation of how to apply the core principles of the Law (Matthew 5).  Paul and James both call the Law "perfect." (Acts 22, James 1)

2) The Levitical priesthood has been annulled, and replaced with a better priesthood (Hebrews 7).

How can both these things be true, if the priesthood is part and parcel of the Law?

Did God exercise some hitherto unknown "line-item veto?"  No... the priesthood was always something separate from the Law.

Jarrod

What Law are you referring to that has never been abrogated? If you say the Levitical priesthood is not part of the Law, other than the ten commandments, what else do you say is part of the Law that has never been abrogated?

Also, not only was the Levitical priesthood been replaced, but the covenant between God and the children of Israel.

Is the Law you refer to not part of that covenant, which had been replaced by the New covenant? 

The Old covenant includes the law on circumcision. Now, in the NT, Paul says that every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law. That seems to be what the law on circumcision entails in the OT, more than being a covenant sign. As such, the Law then forms part of the old covenant. And because the old covenant was already replaced, it follows that, all that constitutes it had been done away with by the replacement of the covenant.       
« Last Edit: Sat Mar 28, 2020 - 05:32:03 by Michael2012 »

Offline Alive3

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Works
« Reply #91 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 15:06:09 »
To the original post: In my mind, I don't see how there could be a contradiction between Jesus and Paul.
Perhaps it is helpful to understand the source of the saving faith that Jesus mentioned in the relevant scripture.
It is my opinion that this 'faith' is a gift, just as we consider Salvation a gift.

Jesus said we must believe, but that statement leaves room for its origin. The same goes for statements that Paul made.

Underlying these things was the understanding. Paul spent near countless hours discussing and teaching the Gospel to believers and non-believers and not all of it is contained in the canon. We have the Paraclete that shines light on what has been providentially preserved for us by a loving and faithful Father. All that we need is there, but not all is there.
And of course the 'all' must and will be consistent with what is there.

Online GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Manna: 9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #92 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 18:40:53 »
This wasn't written for me, but I'm going to endorse it.  Actually, I think I'm going to go further...

I've come to think of the Levitical priesthood as something separate from the Law.  The priesthood was something added, a little after the law, to compensate for the people's inability to keep the Law.

Consider this argument:

1) The Law has never been abrogated.  Jesus Himself endorsed the Law, saying He did not come to destroy it, and His Sermon on the Mount is largely an expansion/explanation of how to apply the core principles of the Law (Matthew 5).  Paul and James both call the Law "perfect." (Acts 22, James 1)

2) The Levitical priesthood has been annulled, and replaced with a better priesthood (Hebrews 7).

How can both these things be true, if the priesthood is part and parcel of the Law?

Did God exercise some hitherto unknown "line-item veto?"  No... the priesthood was always something separate from the Law.

Jarrod

I agree 100%. The Levitical Priesthood Law, was certainly added to God's Law, "till the Seed should come".

I think Moses hinted of this in Ex. 18.

15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; (After those days)

16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

I believe Paul called it the "Law of works" in Romans 3, as opposed to the Law of Faith, or Law of Mercy, or Law of Judgments that Jesus said the Pharisees had omitted from their religion. .

And he addressed it again in Galatians 3.

Gal. 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

There had to be an existing Law to transgress before atonement.

This Levitical Priesthood, which the Levites had corrupted, was the only religious system in place in Paul's Time, and it claimed to deal with the atonement of sins, or Justification as Paul says.

Paul, being a Pharisee himself, certainly knew this better than most.

Great topic 4WD, good stuff WS  ::amen!::




Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12652
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #93 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 18:50:09 »
What Law are you referring to that has never been abrogated? If you say the Levitical priesthood is not part of the Law, other than the ten commandments, what else do you say is part of the Law that has never been abrogated?
I'm not sure why you're excluding the 10 commandments.  They are the covenant of the Law.  But it's most of the book of Deuteronomy.  A lot of it is also repeated in Exodus, and Psalms, and well... everywhere.  So it gets complicated to point it out, as it tends to leak out of Deuteronomy and across the rest of the Bible.

I guess confusion sets in when people attempt to apply for themselves all the EXTRA rules that only the Levites were ever meant to follow.  Otherwise known as Leviticus.

Also, not only was the Levitical priesthood been replaced, but the covenant between God and the children of Israel.
I agree.  As foretold in Jeremiah.

Is the Law you refer to not part of that covenant, which had been replaced by the New covenant?
I think if you look at it honestly, you'll find that basically all the commandments of the Old Covenant, are also part of the New Covenant.

Jarrod

Offline Michael2012

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3641
  • Manna: 12
Re: Works
« Reply #94 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 19:55:41 »
Quote from: Michael
What Law are you referring to that has never been abrogated? If you say the Levitical priesthood is not part of the Law, other than the ten commandments, what else do you say is part of the Law that has never been abrogated?
I'm not sure why you're excluding the 10 commandments.  They are the covenant of the Law.  But it's most of the book of Deuteronomy.  A lot of it is also repeated in Exodus, and Psalms, and well... everywhere.  So it gets complicated to point it out, as it tends to leak out of Deuteronomy and across the rest of the Bible.

I guess confusion sets in when people attempt to apply for themselves all the EXTRA rules that only the Levites were ever meant to follow.  Otherwise known as Leviticus.
I am not excluding the ten commandments. I in fact take in a given that they are part of the Law to which you say was not abrogated. I was trying to find out from you, besides the ten, what else do you say is part of the Law that has never been abrogated. 

So, in other words you saying that, besides the ten commandments, there are other commandments and judgements, included in the Law that was not abrogated, and that pointing them out where in scriptures is complicated. And with that, you can't really tell me what they are.

Quote from: WS
Quote from: Michael
Also, not only was the Levitical priesthood been replaced, but the covenant between God and the children of Israel.
I agree.  As foretold in Jeremiah.

Yes.

Quote from: WS
Quote from: Michael
Is the Law you refer to not part of that covenant, which had been replaced by the New covenant?
I think if you look at it honestly, you'll find that basically all the commandments of the Old Covenant, are also part of the New Covenant.

That's how you view it WS. But even so, that is besides the point. My is point is that , since the Law is part of the covenant, when the covenant was replaced by a new one, all that constitutes the former covenant were done away by the new covenant.

I don't know why that is so hard for many here to understand and accept.

I'm reminded the first time that the former covenant was broken by the covenant people, the children of Israel, at Sinai. God was so angry that He wanted to kill them all. But you know the story, and God renewed the covenant. Even in the renewing of it, God again wrote the ten commandments in tablets of stone by His own finger, and the rest, let Moses write them. In the new Covenant, God also writes with His own finger His laws, but not in stones, but in the mind and hearts of His people. In the former, we have the scriptures so that we know what God had written. But in the New covenant, I ask, what did God write the minds and hearts of His people? We all claim to be God's people. And if we are, then we know what God had written in our hearts. And if God had written them in our minds and hearts, we really don't need to look them up in the book of the Law. But I haven't met one who can tell me by heart every single commandment of God, even while they say they are all written in the book of the Law.

If one will just be honest to himself, and ask himself, what God had written in their heart, if they are children of God, they can at any time, right now even, tell what God had written in their hearts.
« Last Edit: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 20:27:16 by Michael2012 »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12652
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #95 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 20:14:14 »
Quote
I'm not sure why you're excluding the 10 commandments.  They are the covenant of the Law.  But it's most of the book of Deuteronomy.  A lot of it is also repeated in Exodus, and Psalms, and well... everywhere.  So it gets complicated to point it out, as it tends to leak out of Deuteronomy and across the rest of the Bible.

I guess confusion sets in when people attempt to apply for themselves all the EXTRA rules that only the Levites were ever meant to follow.  Otherwise known as Leviticus.
I am not excluding the ten commandments. I in fact take in a given that they are part of the Law to which you say was not abrogated. I was trying to find out from you, besides the ten, what else do you say is part of the Law that has never been abrogated. 

So, in other words you saying that, besides the ten commandments, there are other commandments and judgements, included in the Law that was not abrogated, and that pointing them out where in scriptures is complicated. And with that, you can't really tell me what they are.
I thought it was pretty clear... it's the book of Deuteronomy... minus the last chapter or so that was added documenting Moses death.


Quote
Quote from: WS
I think if you look at it honestly, you'll find that basically all the commandments of the Old Covenant, are also part of the New Covenant.
That's how you view it WS. But even so, that is besides the point. My is point is that , since the Law is part of the covenant, when the covenant was replaced by a new one, all that constitutes the former covenant were done away by the new covenant.

I don't know why that is so hard for many here to understand and accept.
There's several covenants, and they look similar, because God doesn't really change.  The New Covenant is an extension of Abraham's covenant.  It's only the covenant Moses mediated that was "added because of transgressions" that was subsequently done away with.

Quote
I'm reminded the first time that the former covenant was broken by the covenant people, the children of Israel, at Sinai.
Uh... the people of Israel weren't under the covenant of Moses til AFTER Sinai.  They just made the mistake of making and worshiping an idol literally on God's front porch.

Jarrod

Offline Michael2012

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3641
  • Manna: 12
Re: Works
« Reply #96 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 21:20:23 »
I thought it was pretty clear... it's the book of Deuteronomy... minus the last chapter or so that was added documenting Moses death.

So, for example, are the following laws not done away with?

Deuteronomy 14: 1 Ye are the children of the Lord your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

2 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.

4 These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,

5 The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.

6 And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.

7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:

10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

14 And every raven after his kind,

15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

19 And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.

20 But of all clean fowls ye may eat.

21 Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.


How about Deut. 19:21; Deut. 21:15-21; Deut. 22:11 (to mention a few)?

If you say they are done away with, please tell why so?

If you say they are not done away with, I would presume that you observe and keep them.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7535
  • Manna: 369
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Works
« Reply #97 on: Sat Mar 28, 2020 - 05:18:58 »
You refuse to accept that God in His absolute sovereignty is free to do whatever He pleases, such as impose a condition upon those that He would save from sin and condemnation.  Why would you think that?  Why do you impose such limits upon God?  And the answer is simply because you incorrectly jargonize the meaning of the God's absolute sovereignty. You change the meaning to fit your theology.
Now, if that is not the snail calling the worm slimly then there is not a better way of explaining just how much you twisted around the very meaning of God's sovereignty in laboring to convince yourself, others or even myself that you are right and I'm wrong on God's sovereignity~ that 4WD is truly a sleight of hands in laboring to protect your corrupt understanding of God's sovereignty.
Quote
Ephesians 4:14~"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"
Before God, I understand perfectly the absolute sovereignty of God's that he has the RIGHT/POWER to make one vessel of honour and another of dishonur of the SAME LUMP!
Quote from: Paul
Romans 9:21~"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

"Hath not the potter power over the clay"~Paul did not waste any time trying to explain such high matters to such a profane objector, and neither shall we~but instead he denied man the privilege or right to ask, and then he simply defended God’s sovereignty. The Jews knew this passage of scripture, so Paul by the Holy Spirit used it against their objections. He did not have to provide a direct quotation, they knew the principle he used from Isaiah 45:9.

The metaphor should be understood first in its simple lesson of defending God’s prerogative. The application of the Potter’s work among men in salvation is laid out in the next three verses of Romans 9. The sovereignty of God in election is proved from theology ~the nature and authority of God.

"Of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour."~The same lump includes our common state of condemnation in Adam (Romans 5:12-19; Ist Corinthians 15:22). Though Paul does not raise this point or any other here to soften his blow against the question. The granting of mercy to vessels of mercy assumes those vessels needed and required mercy. We consider Romans 5:8 and others like it to indicate God viewed us as condemned sinners. There are vessels of honor prepared for glory~ that is their merciful end, for God’s glory (9:23).

"And another unto dishonor"~God has made some men for dishonor~to themselves, but for His own honor over them (9:17). There are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction~that is their design, but for God’s glory (9:22). These are the children of wrath that we read about elsewhere (Ephesians 2:3; Ist Thess. 5:9; Ist Peter 2:8).

Sir, God's sovereignty is NOT explained in the scriptures as you desire it to be :
Quote
God in His absolute sovereignty is free to do whatever He pleases, such as impose a condition upon those that He would save from sin and condemnation.
Have you never read so much as this in the scriptures right above what we are considering:
Quote from: Paul
Roamsn 9:9-11~"For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)"
Your defintion of God's sovereignty as imposing works ON SALVATION from sin and condemnaiton is again a sleight of hands that men of God do not use.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Works
« Reply #98 on: Sat Mar 28, 2020 - 07:15:34 »
Now, if that is not the snail calling the worm slimly then there is not a better way of explaining just how much you twisted around the very meaning of God's sovereignty in laboring to convince yourself, others or even myself that you are right and I'm wrong on God's sovereignity~ that 4WD is truly a sleight of hands in laboring to protect your corrupt understanding of God's sovereignty.
I have twisted nothing.  And where exactly do you get the "very meaning of God's sovereignty"? This is another of those jargonized words of Calvinism and Reformed Theology.  In point of fact, the words "sovereign" and "sovereignty" never appear in your preferred Bible, the KJV.

Divine sovereignty is certainly taught in the Bible, usually under the terminology of God’s Lordship. For example, the most of the passages in the KJV corresponding to  passages in the NIV containing the phrase Sovereign Lord or Sovereign God use the phrase O Lord God.  Such passages do not produce a definition for sovereignty.  That is derived separately.  And in that, Calvinists hold to a very specific kind of sovereignty, namely, omnicausal or pancausal sovereignty. The presupposition is that God cannot be truly sovereign unless He is the ultimate cause of everything. All Biblical teaching is made to conform to this philosophically defined sovereignty. What suffers most under the tyranny of this paradigm is the reality of human free will, which is actually denied. All attempts to redefine “free will” to make it conform to omnicausal sovereignty are unsuccessful. The sovereignty of God in Calvinism and all related theologies is a theology of determinism.  God causes everything, good or evil, and mankind is completely and wholly powerless in everything. It is not God, Himself, but rather the sovereignty of God as defined by Calvinistic theologies that precludes God's placing conditions upon mankind for his salvation from sin and condemnation.  And such conditions are there for the reading in God's word.
Quote from: RB
Before God, I understand perfectly the absolute sovereignty of God's that he has the RIGHT/POWER to make one vessel of honour and another of dishonur of the SAME LUMP!
You say that, however, you impose that philosophically defined sovereignty on that RIGHT/POWER to fit your own particular theology.
Quote from: RB
The metaphor should be understood first in its simple lesson of defending God’s prerogative. The application of the Potter’s work among men in salvation is laid out in the next three verses of Romans 9. The sovereignty of God in election is proved from theology ~the nature and authority of God.
But as I have pointed out so many times here, your very interpretation of most of Romans 9 is flawed to begin with.  Your interpretation carries yet another interpretation skewed to conform to the Calvinistic definition of sovereignty.  The election in Romans 9 speaks primarily to the election to service not the election to salvation.  The discussion there concerning the selection, the choosing, the election of Jacob was not about Jacob's salvation at all, but rather about Jacob's role in bringing God's plan of salvation to the world through the chosen nation ethnic Israel.
Quote from: RB
Sir, God's sovereignty is NOT explained in the scriptures as you desire it to be : Have you never read so much as this in the scriptures right above what we are considering:  Your defintion of God's sovereignty as imposing works ON SALVATION from sin and condemnaiton is again a sleight of hands that men of God do not use.
The very irony of your statement here tells me you haven't even read the OP to this topic; or if you have, you didn't understand it.  I tried to make it very clear there that I do not impose works, in the sense of Paul's use of the word, ON SALVATION from sin and condemnation. Any imposed works on salvation are in the sense of Jesus' use of the word.  And as I showed from scripture, Jesus' use of the word in John 6 is not the same as Paul's use of the word in phrases like "faith not works".

Online GB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Manna: 9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #99 on: Sat Mar 28, 2020 - 08:15:32 »
So, for example, are the following laws not done away with?

Deuteronomy 14: 1 Ye are the children of the Lord your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

2 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.

4 These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,

5 The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.

6 And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.

7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:

10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

14 And every raven after his kind,

15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

19 And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.

20 But of all clean fowls ye may eat.

21 Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.


How about Deut. 19:21; Deut. 21:15-21; Deut. 22:11 (to mention a few)?

If you say they are done away with, please tell why so?

If you say they are not done away with, I would presume that you observe and keep them.

This was not to me, but I will jump in anyway.

What you have posted are the Statutes and Judgments of God. These are part of the Laws that the Word of God, which became Flesh, promised to place on the inward parts of His People. Our minds as it were. We now have direct access to these Words, no more Priesthood of men to administer them, as in the Old Covenant.

1 John tells us. "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

There is some disagreement among religious men as to how that happens, whether men hear "His Voice" and submit to it, or whether God actually picks the man based on nothing they did to instill His Commandments in them. Either way it is clear Scripturally, the end result of a person who is one of God's people, is a person who adheres to His Commandments.

I'm not even sure why a "child of God" would want to eat what his Father teaches is an "abdominal thing". If God says "don't cut yourself", I'm ok with that.

I find it quite ironic that because men have chosen to eat the unclean bat, thousands and thousands will die. The Swine Flu killed a lot of people around the world. You would think this might entice some folks into giving God some credit for being quite smart in His Instruction. But they don't. They still preach to folks not to "burden" themselves with the Yoke of bondage God's "works" represent to them.

 As it is written;

Duet. 30: 19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days;

But men love darkness.

Jer. 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.

 But they said, We will not walk therein.

As it is to this day.
« Last Edit: Sat Mar 28, 2020 - 10:29:35 by GB »

BTR

  • Guest
Re: Works
« Reply #100 on: Sat Mar 28, 2020 - 09:24:29 »
Two old paths.

“AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. -James 2

Abraham was before Moses.


Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of MethuSelah, and he had other sons and daughters.

So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
  -Gen. 5:22-24

Enoch walked with God, so much so that he didn't have to die. For 300 years he walked with God and he had no Bible.   Think about it.


Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying,
“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
-Gen.2:15-17


Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.
But they said, We will not walk therein.
  -Jer. 6:16
« Last Edit: Sat Mar 28, 2020 - 12:13:13 by BTR »

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7535
  • Manna: 369
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Works
« Reply #101 on: Sun Mar 29, 2020 - 03:51:20 »
I think if you look at it honestly, you'll find that basically all the commandments of the Old Covenant, are also part of the New Covenant.
That's so, for all the law is summed up in two commandments~Love for God and man. There were certain laws that only pertain to Israel especially so their dietary laws, that were only until the time of reformation going from the OT worship to the worship under the new covenant of Jesus Christ who far exceeded Moses. Acts 10; 2nd Corinthians 3; Hebrews 3; etc.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12652
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #102 on: Sun Mar 29, 2020 - 04:49:59 »
So, for example, are the following laws not done away with?
I try to avoid these kind of conversations - the ones where people spout verses back and forth and try to make the Bible look silly in order to justify their own point.

To answer your questions directly, no these weren't done away with, and I guess I keep all of them except for eating pork, which is bad for me and I know it.  But bacon is delicious, what can I say?  You've got me there.

Jarrod

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12652
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: Works
« Reply #103 on: Sun Mar 29, 2020 - 04:52:08 »
There were certain laws that only pertain to Israel especially so their dietary laws, that were only until the time of reformation going from the OT worship to the worship under the new covenant of Jesus Christ who far exceeded Moses. Acts 10; 2nd Corinthians 3; Hebrews 3; etc.
It's pretty much just the pig, isn't it?  I don't know anyone eating vulture or camel.  We look at those and rightfully say "yuck!"

Offline Michael2012

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3641
  • Manna: 12
Re: Works
« Reply #104 on: Sun Mar 29, 2020 - 04:55:35 »
This was not to me, but I will jump in anyway.

What you have posted are the Statutes and Judgments of God. These are part of the Laws that the Word of God, which became Flesh, promised to place on the inward parts of His People. Our minds as it were. We now have direct access to these Words, no more Priesthood of men to administer them, as in the Old Covenant.

1 John tells us. "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

There is some disagreement among religious men as to how that happens, whether men hear "His Voice" and submit to it, or whether God actually picks the man based on nothing they did to instill His Commandments in them. Either way it is clear Scripturally, the end result of a person who is one of God's people, is a person who adheres to His Commandments.

I'm not even sure why a "child of God" would want to eat what his Father teaches is an "abdominal thing". If God says "don't cut yourself", I'm ok with that.

I find it quite ironic that because men have chosen to eat the unclean bat, thousands and thousands will die. The Swine Flu killed a lot of people around the world. You would think this might entice some folks into giving God some credit for being quite smart in His Instruction. But they don't. They still preach to folks not to "burden" themselves with the Yoke of bondage God's "works" represent to them.

 As it is written;

Duet. 30: 19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days;

But men love darkness.

Jer. 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.

 But they said, We will not walk therein.

As it is to this day.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Hebrews 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Hebrews 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.