|
Post by John on May 30, 2019 17:30:40 GMT -5
Thanks Joseph. The first one is just an opinion he has that what you said is inaccurate.
That is not a false witness, but clearly he has taken you completely wrong about what you believe.
Thanks for clearing this up. So 2fw8212a, Joseph does not believe the things you have said he does. Do you accept that? I was not intentionally bearing false witness.
We have spiritual adversaries and I know people can get that interpretation I was warning about.
Even if joseph did not mean what I was warning about in my posts, his posts could pass that interpretation to people.
And I was warning, just that. No harm intended.
Blessings! Thanks Letters. I could have just deleted a couple of posts, but I felt like this was a misunderstanding, and it would be better to resolve it.
|
|
|
Post by Tabitha3319 on Jun 10, 2019 20:02:13 GMT -5
Here is my understanding so far of the law.
Paul was trying to get us to see that salvation has always been by faith like with Abraham but that the law can only condemn.
I think that's where the teaching Butero criticized comes from.
So if the law was never meant to save anyone, then maybe it actually is something to point to salvation by faith.
|
|
|
Post by solid on Jun 10, 2019 20:49:37 GMT -5
To me, salvation has always been by faith, even when they were under the law.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 11, 2019 0:29:24 GMT -5
Here is my understanding so far of the law. Paul was trying to get us to see that salvation has always been by faith like with Abraham but that the law can only condemn. I think that's where the teaching Butero criticized comes from. So if the law was never meant to save anyone, then maybe it actually is something to point to salvation by faith. Salvation has always come by faith. Under the law of Moses, you believed in God so you obeyed His laws. It does point us to salvation by faith. We believe in Christ, so we keep his sayings and commandments. I am just saying that those who say we were given the law just to show we can't keep it are wrong.
It is like those who claim the dietary laws were given to Israel so they would be in good health. That is not true. If that was the reason for them, why would God say to cut someone off from Israel for eating pork? Dying early should be punishment enough. The dietary laws were given as a sign that the children of Israel were separate from the idol worshipping nations around them. God was making a distinction between clean and unclean, and he used things like dietary laws and circumcision to make that point.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jun 11, 2019 7:19:45 GMT -5
The issue of whether Christian salvation comes through the Law is not relevant to this question. We all know the Law was a doorway for Jesus, and the saints of old were by faith looking ahead for salvation. No one here says otherwise. Let’s kill that strawman and move on.
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. — Philippians 3:5-6
Put aside the issue of salvation as Christians understand it. Whatever the Law was good for, however far it got him, Paul was able to keep it. He was blameless within the Law. It doesn’t mean he was ‘saved’ in the Christian sense, but he did apprehend whatever righteousness was available.
Saints of old who were righteous within the Law died with the hope of seeing Jesus. If that’s not true, then Elijah had no business talking to Jesus at the transfiguration. Job had no business saying his redeemer lived and Job would see him in the flesh.
Why was poor Lazarus resting in Abraham’s bosom apart from the wicked rich man if no one could keep the Law and there was no point in trying?
I don’t pretend to understand the mystery of what Jesus did for the old saints. I just know that the Bible says their righteousness wasn’t for naught — and I don’t know how anyone can say the old saints weren’t expected to actually live rightly.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Jun 11, 2019 7:36:13 GMT -5
Whatever the Law was good for, however far it got him, Paul was able to keep it. No, he wasn't able to keep it. Not the true Law, at least: The Ten Commandments.
John PG4Him
I recommend you reading this topic. It answers all these questions and clears many misunderstandings.
Blessings!
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jun 11, 2019 8:19:16 GMT -5
Whatever the Law was good for, however far it got him, Paul was able to keep it. No, he wasn't able to keep it. Not the true Law, at least: The Ten Commandments.
John PG4Him
I recommend you reading this topic. It answers all these questions and clears many misunderstandings.
Blessings!So Paul was lying when he said he was blameless in righteousness of the law?
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jun 11, 2019 8:22:07 GMT -5
I don’t know why this continues to be so difficult. Of course Paul’s keeping of the Law as he understood it would not save his soul. For the dozenth time, no one here ever said it would. This is strictly — and I shall say it again — strictly — about whether it was possible to keep the Law as Paul and his peers understood it.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Jun 11, 2019 8:26:03 GMT -5
So Paul was lying when he said he was blameless in righteousness of the law? There is a difference in being blameless in righteousness of the law and righteousness of God.
What Paul actually was doing when he was deceived was to follow the Law through carnal reasoning.
He was not keeping the Law of God:
The Ten Commandments
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God;
for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." - Romans 8:7
He was keeping his interpretation of the law, which is completely different. Otherwise he would not seek to kill the saints of the Lord or persecute His church.
"And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme;
and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities." - Acts 26:11
"...Lord, they know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believe on You." - Acts 22:19
"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." - 1 Corinthians 15:9
"although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an
insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." - 1 Timothy 1:13
Never was such behavior considered keeping the Law of God. He clearly failed, as all others.
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." - Romans 3:23
Blessings!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 8:53:13 GMT -5
Rom 9:31-32
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jun 11, 2019 8:57:51 GMT -5
I don’t have time to circle around the same tree on this. I’m not disagree with what Letters said, but it’s a nonsequitor.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jun 11, 2019 8:58:46 GMT -5
Rom 9:31-32 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; Once again, NO ONE here disagrees with this, and it remains not the point of John’s question.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 11, 2019 10:34:13 GMT -5
I don’t know why this continues to be so difficult. Of course Paul’s keeping of the Law as he understood it would not save his soul. For the dozenth time, no one here ever said it would. This is strictly — and I shall say it again — strictly — about whether it was possible to keep the Law as Paul and his peers understood it. This is answered directly in Philippians. The answer is yes. 3:4-6 "Although as for myself, I [ as a Jes ] could be having confidence also in the flesh. If, as is the case, anyone else presumes to have come to a settled persuasion, trusting in the flesh, I could occupy that place, and with more reason; eight days old in circumcision, my origin from Israelitish stock, belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew from true Hebrew parents [i.e., not a Hellenist], with reference to the law, a Pharisee, with regard to zeal, persecuting the Church, with reference to that kind of righteousness which is in the law, become blameless." from THE NEW TESTAMENT, an expanded translation, Kenneth S.Wuest (well known accurate Greek Biblical Scholar) footnote: excerpt from the preface: "The translation here offered will undoubtedly often jar the reader who is used to the smoothness of the standard translation, but it is hoped that thus the reader's attention will be forcibly drawn to what he is reading. <getting more of the true meaning fully, attentively> The translation attempts to bring out the full meaning of each Greek word. Some Greek words are so full of meaning that many English words are required to translate them adequately. " ... ... ...
|
|