What does Paul mean, when he says

[Elijah John]

Romans 14.33

..for whatever is not of faith is sin.

What does this mean? Is everything a person does during the course of a day a matter of faith? Are mundane activities "of faith"? If not, are mundane things "sin"?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 68 by shnarkle]

Your concept would make believers who eat pork more depraved and carnal then pork eating non believers?

Thats not going to make you very popular I'm thinking?

I'm not sure what prompted you to make this claim, but I would have to agree because if someone sins knowingly, they are definitely more depraved than those who do so out of ignorance.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Acts 15:21 shows conclusively that the church is in the synagogues on the Sabbath learning the Mosaic law, and that this is the reason why the elders see no point in repeating what they're already learning.

No, you are adding your own spin. Acts 15:21 states only that Moses has been preached from the earliest times and read in the synagogues. It does not state that the church was in the synagogues learning the Mosaic law.

I don't have to put any spin on it due to the fact that there is no reason to point out that Moses is being read in the synagogues every Sabbath if they aren't going to go in there and listen to it. He's pointing out what they're doing already. If they're not doing this, then please tell me why he would bring it up in the first place???

I responded to this question:

That law did not save anyone.... tam

So why bring up the fact that Moses has been preached in every synagogue since earliest times? Because they knew that the law did not save anyone, even though Moses has been preached since ancient times. No matter how often or for how long the law of Moses has been preached, it is not Moses (and the law) that has saved anyone. So why send people back to a law that was meant to act as a tutor leading to Christ - when the TRUE and better WAY was here, the One who does save?

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."


Moses points to Christ, the law was a tutor leading to Christ, and now that Christ is here, He is the One to whom we listen and follow (John 14:21-23).

It is through Him we are saved and reconciled to God.



Look at the issue from Acts:


But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.�


This is the claim that Paul and Barnabas disputed. This is what they fought against. Should Gentiles be circumcised (in the flesh) and ordered to keep the law of Moses? The conclusion (according to the Holy Spirit) was NO.


Peter even told them (those claiming that gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses), that they were attempting to put a yoke on the necks of the disciples that neither they nor their forefathers could bear:

Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Do you see that they were they putting God to the test by this? I did not catch that part until the Spirit just showed me. But God had provided His Son, God made the gentiles clean by His Son, and here these men were saying that this Son is not enough.


And again, in response to the demand that Gentiles be required to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses, James also answers no,

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.




You would agree that the above things are mentioned in the law, yes? So if your argument is that they weren't telling people to obey the law because the law is already being preached in the synagogues, then what is the point of telling them to abstain from these things that are also in the law of Moses, and so also being preached?


This reasoning is inconsistent.

That was never the purpose of the law. Therefore pointing out that the law was never intended to save anyone doesn't do away with the actual purpose of the law. If the purpose of the law is still in tact then the law is still in tact.

The law was a tutor leading to Christ (and also worked as a mirror, to reveal sin in oneself):

So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.



Now that Christ has come, we are under Him. We are not under the guardian (which is the law) that led to Him.

Not that gentiles were under the law of Moses to begin with, since they were not a part of the old covenant; the law of the new covenant is written upon the heart and that law is love.


Love God with your whole heart and soul and mind.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Love your enemies.

Love one another as Christ has loved us.

Love covers over a multitude of sins.


And against love there is NO law (Galatians 5:22, 23). Because LOVE is the law of God. Which only makes sense, shnarkle (and anyone reading, peace to you all)! Because God IS love. Of course the law that comes from God is also LOVE.



May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, so as to to know the truth of these things, and to hear as the Spirit (Christ) and the Bride say to you, "Come!" Many anyone who thirsts and anyone who wishes, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[postroad]

[Replying to post 71 by shnarkle]

As a non believer and a Gentile I'm haven't bound myself to any covenant old or new.
I'm not making any claims on some promise earthly or eternal.

Somehow it seems I must bear an everlasting curse associated with an agreement I haven't entered into.

If anything I should only receive the penalty of death as per Adam. The further blessings and curses are associated with the additional agreement.

Not really related to the topic. Just my pet peeve.

But back to the topic. Your opinion is that Christians have been convicted by the Spirit to keep the Law but are simply stifling that instruction out of stubbornness?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 72 by tam]

[quote:98139b31c5][b:98139b31c5]That law did not save anyone.[/b:98139b31c5]... tam[/quote:98139b31c5]

There not going into the synagogues on the Sabbath to hear the book of Moses as a means of salvation. They're going into hear Moses preached because that's what a saved and holy people do.

So why bring up the fact that Moses has been preached in every synagogue since earliest times? Because they knew that the law did not save anyone,[b:98139b31c5] even though [/b:98139b31c5]Moses has been preached since ancient times.

You're going to have to do better than that because none of that makes any sense. There's no point in bringing up the fact that the Mosaic law doesn't save anyone, after they've just outlined that no one should be fornicating, or consuming blood. None of that will save anyone, right? So why bring up any laws? Not only do they bring up what they see as the most egregious problems with the new converts, but then go on to point out that they needn't belabore the point due to the fact that they can hear all of it preached each ande very Sabbath day.

No matter how often or for how long the law of Moses has been preached, it is not Moses (and the law) that has saved anyone.

It never was. This is a straw man argument. I've never claimed the Mosaic law could save anyone. In fact, I've repeatedly pointed out that this was never its purpose.

So why send people back to a law that was meant to act as a tutor leading [i:98139b31c5]to[/i:98139b31c5] Christ - when the TRUE and better WAY was here, the One who does save?

Now you're conflating the sacrificial system with the commandments. The "tutor" (Gr. paedegogos) doesn't teach anything. The tutor makes sure the rules are kept, and the only reason the tutor is no longer necessary is because the law is being kept "by faith" which "establishes the law". This is explicitly what Paul says.

I don't deny that the tutor is done away with for those who keep God's commandments, but you aren't making that claim. You're claiming that faith has come, but faith does not lead one to sin. This is where your argument not only breaks down, but it completely contradicts what Paul is teaching.

When Christ comes to the new creature, they no longer sin. This is explicitly stated by Paul repeatedly in Romans and Galatians. He says: "Those who walk after the Spirit no longer fulfil the lust of the flesh". It doesn't get much clearer than that, and yet no one seems to see it.

[color=brown:98139b31c5]
But some believers who belonged to the party [b:98139b31c5]of the Pharisees[/b:98139b31c5] rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them[b:98139b31c5] and to order them to keep the law of Moses.�[/b:98139b31c5] [/color:98139b31c5]


This is the claim that Paul and Barnabas [b:98139b31c5]disputed[/b:98139b31c5]. This is what they fought against. Should Gentiles be circumcised (in the flesh) and ordered to keep the law of Moses? The conclusion (according to the Holy Spirit) was NO.

And yet Paul had no problem taking Timothy to get him circumcised. Explain that one for us all.

Peter even told them (those claiming that gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses), that they were attempting to put a yoke on the necks of the disciples that neither they nor their forefathers could bear:

[color=green:98139b31c5]Now, therefore, [b:98139b31c5]why are you putting God to the test [/b:98139b31c5]by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?[/color:98139b31c5]

And yet they were already circumcised, and had no problem circumcising their own sons. Why? Again, you have repeatedly dodged my point spotlighting that Paul took Timothy to have him circumcised. This was no small event either given that Timothy's father was a gentile.

Do you see that they were they putting God to the test by this?

Nope. There is nothing to indicate that God is being put to the test here at all.

I did not catch that part until the Spirit just showed me. But God had provided His Son, God made the gentiles clean by His Son, and here these men were saying that this Son is not enough.

Nope. Not even close. No one who has been saved by Christ is keeping the law to make up for any lack in Christ's sacrifice. They are keeping the law because they are a new creature in Christ. See the differnce? You're not just putting the cart before the horse, you then simply remove the cart altogether. Faith must have works, not to save, but as a consequence of salvation. One can help others without having love (e.g. a Pharisee), but one cannot love without helping others. You have it completely backwards.

[color=green:98139b31c5]Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

And according to your doctrine, none of this is going to save them, right? There is no point in carrying out these stipulations as these have already been done away with. That was what you believe was the tutor which you have already claimed is done away with with the advent of Christ.

[/color:98139b31c5]

You would agree that the above things are mentioned in the law, yes?

Of course, but you've already pointed out that these are done away with when Christ came, right?

So if your argument is that they weren\'t telling people to obey the law

That's not my argument.

what is the point of telling them to abstain from these things that are also in the law of Moses, and so also being preached?[/b:98139b31c5]

Because they are the biggest problem facing these newly converted gentiles.



[quote:98139b31c5]That was never the purpose of the law. Therefore pointing out that the law was never intended to save anyone doesn\'t do away with the actual purpose of the law. If the purpose of the law is still in tact then the law is still in tact.[/quote:98139b31c5]



[color=green:98139b31c5][b:98139b31c5]So the law was our guardian until Christ came[/b:98139b31c5] that we might be justified by faith. [b:98139b31c5]Now that this faith has come,[/b:98139b31c5] [b:98139b31c5]we are no longer under a guardian.

The problem is that faith hasn't come to those who continue to sin. Those who continue to sin, can't even rely upon that guardian to prevent them from sinning. The law has no power to do anything. It can't save anyone, and it certainly can't protect one from sin. The "guardian" or "tutor" was what motivated an observant Jew to keep the law. They didn't want to have to offer an expensive sacrifice for a gross sin. They did their best to keep the law to avoid these "penalties". They didn't want to have to deal with the "curse" of the law.

It didn't always work becuase the motions of sin at work in the flesh are stronger than the will or effort one exerts to keep God's commandments. When faith has come to indwell in the new creature in Christ, they no longer have to rely upon the unaided will or effort of the flesh. They have the Spirit of Christ indwelling in them keeping them from sin.

And against love there is NO law (Galatians 5:22, 23).

There is no law against love. This doesn't do away with the Mosaic law which is fulfilled by love.

Because LOVE is the law of God.

And the law of God explicitly forbids trampling upon his Sabbaths.

If love is the law of God, then how do you get that it's now okay to disregard God's law which is equivalent to his love? It makes no sense to say that one can keep the law through love, only to then conclude that one no longer keeps the law. It's a blatant contradiction.

You aren't advancing your argument. You don't seem to be able to distinguish the commandments of God from "that which was added because of transgressions" of God's commandments. The discussion will get nowhere until you understand this fundamental principle of the law.

I've repeatedly shown what Paul is talking about with references which you have ignored.

No one seems to be able to distinguish between STONE tablets INSIDE the Ark of the Covenant which are "for" our benefit from a SCROLL placed BESIDE the Ark of the Covenant that was a "witness against us". Deuteronomy 31:26

Conflating the two leads only to confusion.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 71 by shnarkle]

As a non believer and a Gentile I'm haven't bound myself to any covenant old or new.

This idea of binding oneself to covenants is often conflated with being bound to sin, or being bound to keep God's commandments, but the real distinction being made by Christ and Paul is being bound "by faith" rather than one's free will decision to keep God's commandments.

Being bound by faith is something that happens to people that is beyond their control.

Somehow it seems I must bear an everlasting curse associated with an agreement I haven't entered into.

Everyone enters into the covenant that Adam made with Satan.

If anything I should only receive the penalty of death as per Adam.

Yes. This is inevitable for everyone who continues to identify with their separate identities.

The further blessings and curses are associated with the additional agreement.

Not necessarily. Each individual commandment can be kept which brings its associated blessing, while those which are ignored bring their associated curses. Take your pick. The Old Covenant only spotlights how futile it is to carry out this endeavor by the unaided will.

Your opinion is that Christians have been convicted by the Spirit to keep the Law but are simply stifling that instruction out of stubbornness?

No, not at all. They are utterly and completely deceived into believing they've been convicted when nothing could be further from the truth.

Those who have been convicted by the Spirit know that there is nothing in themselves that is worth redeeming. They see that their "heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked", and their only hope is the gift of repentance which is then followed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which essentially obliterates their separate identity.

This is the essential message of the gospels, i.e. self sacrifice. It is the cornerstone to Paul's message as well. This is what he means by dying to this world daily, and making yourself a living sacrifice.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

You keep saying this about me, and I keep repeating to you that the law of God is LOVE.

Yep, you keep repeating yourself.

Because you continue to repeat yourself. My response to you is not going to change.

You're not advancing an argument.

Since you are the one who keeps going back to your first point in response to what I add, there can be no advancing.

For some strange reason which you still have yet to reveal, you seem to think that loving your neighbor necessarily means you may disobey God's law.

What is strange is that you are judging my words according to YOUR beliefs. So it makes sense to me that you will continue to misunderstand.

The true law of God is love, written upon the heart of a person in the new covenant.

The written law that you (and others) keep trying to put people back under is a yoke that even the apostles and their fathers could not bear.

When the texts explicitly state it is only those who love their neighbor that can fulfill the law.

I have never disputed that.

Are you making the claim that gentiles must get circumcised (in the flesh)?

That was never the issue.

You did not answer the question.

If it was, then you have a serious problem due to the fact that Paul took Timothy and had him circumcised.

Timothy was a Jew (through his mother) and not a gentile.

Obviously he wasn't doing this to establish his or Timothy's righteousness, right?

Correct.

See the problem yet? He was doing it because it is only for those who can benefit from keeping God's commandments because of the faith of Christ given to them by the grace of God. Those who don't keep God's commandments have no reason to do any of it, and God leaves them to their own devices(Romans chapter 1).

Incorrect.

He did it because of the Jews in the area (of where he wanted to take Timothy with him):

Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.




An uncircumcised man would not have been permitted by the Jews into certain places considered holy (and just for the circumcised). Jews might not even have associated or eaten with an uncircumcised man (Jew or Gentile).

For circumcission truly profits, if you keep the law...what advantage then has the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcission? Much every way: chiefly because unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

The whole point of going to the apostles in Acts was to fight against those who were claiming that gentiles had to be circumcised (and ordered to obey the law of Moses).


Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

The sad fact that almost all Christians ignore is that we are justified freely by his grace for the remission of sins that are past,

Not just the past.

Forgive.... fore-give.

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 1John 2:1




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

Every day is a sabbath; a day to set aside ourselves and do the work that God gives us.

Sounds nice, but nonetheless unbiblical.

A person who does the work of God any/every day is indeed keeping the Sabbath, because for them every day is a Sabbath, every day is for God.

Still nowhere to be found anywhere in the bible. Now that I think about it though, it doesn't sound all that nice either. Sounds like what the Pharisees said concerning their inheritance. They donated it all to God and forgot about taking care of their parents.

Only if you are under the mistaken impression that you were not permitted to care for your parents, or for anyone else for that matter, on the sabbath.


Christ taught the opposite, did he not? He healed on the sabbath; he cared for people on the sabbath; He did the work (and will) of His Father on the sabbath.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[postroad]

[Replying to post 75 by shnarkle]

Adam's transgression carried the penalty of physical death only.

Aren't you the one insisting that those in Christ are still required to observe the requirements of the Law?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 77 by tam]

Could I plow my neighbors field on the Sabbath?

[brianbbs67]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

Every day is a sabbath; a day to set aside ourselves and do the work that God gives us.

Sounds nice, but nonetheless unbiblical.

A person who does the work of God any/every day is indeed keeping the Sabbath, because for them every day is a Sabbath, every day is for God.

Still nowhere to be found anywhere in the bible. Now that I think about it though, it doesn't sound all that nice either. Sounds like what the Pharisees said concerning their inheritance. They donated it all to God and forgot about taking care of their parents.

Only if you are under the mistaken impression that you were not permitted to care for your parents, or for anyone else for that matter, on the sabbath.


Christ taught the opposite, did he not? He healed on the sabbath; he cared for people on the sabbath; He did the work (and will) of His Father on the sabbath.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Clearly Christ did good on the Sabbath. The "Corbin" reference was due to the fact that the synagogue was requiring so much from the people that they couldn't take care of their own parents. Christ did not teach working on God's Day. But, he did show how common sense should prevail. Christ called us home and still does. Which is with Isreal, we are grafted not to a christian tree, but a Isrealite one. If we are grafted into Isreal, what are we? Christ never changed or suggested changing anything of the Tenants of Isreal. NO, he reinforced them. So, should we follow Christ's example to the letter, or what many think Paul said? Itching ears...