Does Paul demand obedience to the Commandments?

[sandy whitelinger]

.

He did a pretty good job of summing up the meaning behind the scripture IMV





May I call you Sandy for the sake of brevity?

Anyway, If you've read the entire NT you will know that accepting Jesus as propitiating sacrifice and trusting in him and his Father, justification is a given. Paul speaks in Hebrews of how it is retained not obtain it and how it can be lost.



The above verse ties sin and a lack of faith together. Reverse logic says Faith ties to a lack of sinful behavior or disobedience to God's commands.







This verse set is to remind the erring believer, that, unlike animal sacrifice which became a game for many in ancient Israel, Jesus' sacrifice was given once and for all. To treat that precious sacrifice that saved us with such contempt is to lose the free gift of justification. Thus to treat it with respect and avoid committing sin requiring sacrifice is faith and justification.

I really don't know if these answer your questions. I hope it helps.

Are you going to to speak of the Law or all of God's commandments. Your moving all over the place without being specific. You've failed to show me in Romans (which is where my verses come from. Are you implying that Paul does not justify his positions in Romans?)where following the Law is an act of faith.

 

[dantech]

From what I can gather, you guys are saying that faith and love is more important that holidays and rituals.
I agree with you, but it doesn't in anyway mean that the latter are not important too. They can't just be abandoned...
That's like saying: "being aware on the road is the most important. I am very aware and so I don't need to drive at the speed limit, stop at red lights or slow down in school zones..."

They both go hand in hand. One might be a better motivator. One might be more important. You cannot, however, disregard the rest assuming that your love in God will be make everything else disappear.

 

[Shermana]

From what I can gather, you guys are saying that faith and love is more important that holidays and rituals.
I agree with you, but it doesn't in anyway mean that the latter are not important too. They can't just be abandoned...
That's like saying: "being aware on the road is the most important. I am very aware and so I don't need to drive at the speed limit, stop at red lights or slow down in school zones..."

They both go hand in hand. One might be a better motivator. One might be more important. You cannot, however, disregard the rest assuming that your love in God will be make everything else disappear.

Couldn't put it much better myself.

There's a common fallacy that "love" somehow replaces the details, or that anything that's not "love of neighbor" was never important to begin with, and that any of the so-called "ritual" and "holidays" somehow aren't connected to "love of God". It's like saying you don't have to actually do what your Dad says because as long as you "love him" all his requests are "Fulfilled".

 

[dantech]

Couldn't put it much better myself.

There's a common fallacy that "love" somehow replaces the details, or that anything that's not "love of neighbor" was never important to begin with, and that any of the so-called "ritual" and "holidays" somehow aren't connected to "love of God". It's like saying you don't have to actually do what your Dad says because as long as you "love him" all his requests are "Fulfilled".

I often find myself agreeing with you

 

[Avoice]

Are you going to to speak of the Law or all of God's commandments. Your moving all over the place without being specific. You've failed to show me in Romans (which is where my verses come from. Are you implying that Paul does not justify his positions in Romans?)where following the Law is an act of faith.

Sorry for the confusion, I tend to use the terms interchangeably. I'll try to do better in the future. IMV the 10 commandments are only explained by the whole of God's commandments.

Here are some scriptures in Romans. While these speak of the flesh which prompts all violation of the ten commandments, I've also posted Paul's definition of what the flesh,for the most part, entails. Paul is a complicated writer and even Simon Peter says he's hard to understand. Taking him, even his letters, out of context from the whole of them leaves gaps in the understanding of each.

Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Rom_8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Flesh is, for the most part, defined in Galatians below:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

All the above verses are taken from a program I downloaded called e-Sword and are from the KJV.

 

[Avoice]

Couldn't put it much better myself.

There's a common fallacy that "love" somehow replaces the details, or that anything that's not "love of neighbor" was never important to begin with, and that any of the so-called "ritual" and "holidays" somehow aren't connected to "love of God". It's like saying you don't have to actually do what your Dad says because as long as you "love him" all his requests are "Fulfilled".

That last sentence says it all in relation to far too many Christians I've met in my day. It is like they want their cake and to eat it too, never realizing that neither Jesus nor his Apostles ever intended any of us to come away from their words with that idea.

I add my agreement with Dantech's post.:yes:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sorry for the confusion, I tend to use the terms interchangeably. I'll try to do better in the future. IMV the 10 commandments are only explained by the whole of God's commandments.

Here are some scriptures in Romans. While these speak of the flesh which prompts all violation of the ten commandments, I've also posted Paul's definition of what the flesh,for the most part, entails. Paul is a complicated writer and even Simon Peter says he's hard to understand. Taking him, even his letters, out of context from the whole of them leaves gaps in the understanding of each.








Flesh is, for the most part, defined in Galatians below:




All the above verses are taken from a program I downloaded called e-Sword and are from the KJV.

I still fail to see how your verses from romans show that we follow the Law by faith. Perhaps I missed something?

 

[Avoice]

I still fail to see how your verses from romans show that we follow the Law by faith. Perhaps I missed something?

I'll try again. My original answer was to the question you posed in your title which may have led to the confusion in the last few posts.

The verses show that violating the commandments is sin i.e. an act of the flesh which believers of the age would have associated on reading Romans. As that is the case, obeying the commandments is an act of the Spirit, if one ties spirit in Romans to Spirit in Galatians. There the definition, as much as it can, of spirit exists.

Spirit includes love therfore, love cannot exist without obeying the commandments. I cannot imagine murdering, stealing from or defrauding someone I loved.

Biblically, the inverse of the post to which you posed your question follows:

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith

Where just is the Greek dikaios meaning - just, meet, right (-eous).

dikaios
dik'-ah-yos
From G1349; equitable (in character or act); by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively): - just, meet, right (-eous).

1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
1Th 4:2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

Paul says in Titus :

1Ti_1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, ...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Flesh is, for the most part, defined in Galatians below...

that is not a definition of flesh but works of the flesh. Flesh pretty much means flesh.

 

[Avoice]

Sandy, Paul uses "flesh" as the source of disobeying the commandments.

I'm sorry, but I simply do not have time to explain every piece of the Pauline letters. Read them all through and learn from them with an open mind.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sandy, Paul uses "flesh" as the source of disobeying the commandments.

That's true. Fruits of the flesh and flesh are not the same thing.

I'm sorry, but I simply do not have time to explain every piece of the Pauline letters. Read them all through and learn from them with an open mind.

That's good because your transposing of terms would drive me crazy. For example it seems you are trying to equate living by faith with the leading of the Holy Spirit. You are then trying to use this to say that obedience and faith are the same and that this is the reconcillition of the three verses I offered. It's not. Paul reconciles them in the book of Romans. Read it through it with an open mind.

 

[Avoice]

I'm aware of that Sandy. You were the one with the question. And confusion of terms? Law as opposed to law is used through out the Pauline letters is it not? ; The Law of God as opposed to the law = traditions of man.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm aware of that Sandy.

And this another reason why trying to follow you is like trying to catch my shadow. I made two points. To which did this answer apply?

You were the one with the question.

Which you still haven't answered. When I try and pinpoint an accurate answer or point out the flaws in an apparent answer, you dodge and weave like a drunken master.

And confusion of terms? Law as opposed to law is used through out the Pauline letters is it not? ; The Law of God as opposed to the law = traditions of man.

I'm quite aware that Paul refers to three different laws; the Mosaic Law, the law of faith, and man's law unto himself. The law referred to in the three verses I offered is the Mosaic.
Now, can you use Romans to reconcile those three verses or will you continue to ignore the question I asked earlier as to whether or not Paul can justify his position within the book of Romans with the book of Romans?

 

[jtartar]

That's a nice discourse Jtartar, but it ultimately avoids what Paul says and the point of the OP, your interpretation basically involves ignoring what Paul says about obeying the Law and not sinning, perhaps you simply don't understand Paul as I implied is quite often the case? Would you like to try going over what Paul specifically says in the verses in the OP? The "Lawlessness" in 1 John is indisputably referring to going against the OT Commandments. When Paul says that you are to no longer sin, and if sin is Lawlessness, what does that tell you? What do you think Romans 2:13 means? He was clearly referring to the same Mosaic Law there that the Roman Jews were familiar with. Do you think the definition of sin changed by Paul's time?
There's no reason to believe that Paul is referring to the Law of Christ when he says "The Law", because he's talking to Jews who would not be familiar with it. That's why he specifically says "Law of Christ" to distinguish when he's referring to the Law of Christ. Romans 3:31 and 2:13 for example are clearly about the Mosaic Law.

Shermana,
It seems that you completely overlooked the verses at Rom 3:27,28.
With the death of Jesus the Law of Moses ended, Col 2:13,14. One of the main reasons for Jesus to come to earth was to remove the Law, because all under it were under a curse, because it condemned to death all under the Law because no one could obey the lae perfectly, Rom 6:23, James 2:10, Acts 15:10, Gal 3:10-14, Rom 3:20, 7:6, 6:14,15, 2Cor 3:1-3, 6,7. In fact to get the import of this ending of the Mosaic Law Covenant, read all the way to verse 16.
Every Jew was to obey the circumcision law, notice what Paul said about circumcision, Gal 5:2-6. Notice how Paul jumped on the Jews who started to obey some of the Mosaic Laws again, Glal 4:9-11. The Law acted as a TUTOR, until Christ came, Gal 3:23-26. Read Hebrews 8:6-13.
Christians are under the Law of Faith, Gal 2:16, Gal 6:2, Matt 7:12.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana,
It seems that you completely overlooked the verses at Rom 3:27,28.

Or interpreted it differently than you. Likewise, I can say you completely overlooked Romans 2:13 and 3:31.

With the death of Jesus the Law of Moses ended, Col 2:13,14.

A commonly mistranslated passage, what it's saying is that the record against you is blotted out, not the Law itself. Besides, apparently James didn't catch the memo when he accused Paul of a rumor of teaching Jewish Christians to abandon the Law.

Here's what it should read as, apart from Theological coloring:

Young's Literal Translation
having blotted out the handwriting in the ordinances that is against us, that was contrary to us, and he hath taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross;

One of the main reasons for Jesus to come to earth was to remove the Law, because all under it were under a curse, because it condemned to death all under the Law because no one could obey the lae perfectly,

So when Jesus says he did not come to abolish the Law, he was totally just kidding. And again, this apparently got lost on James, Peter, and the Female Disciples.

Rom 6:23, James 2:10, Acts 15:10, Gal 3:10-14, Rom 3:20, 7:6, 6:14,15, 2Cor 3:1-3, 6,7. In fact to get the import of this ending of the Mosaic Law Covenant, read all the way to verse 16.

James 2:10 somehow backs your case?

Romans 6:23 somehow backs your case?

Your interpretation of Acts 15:10 is negated by the fact that James was still accusing Paul of teaching Jewish Christians to abandon Moses in Acts 21. He was possibly referring to the Oral Law.

Every Jew was to obey the circumcision law, notice what Paul said about circumcision, Gal 5:2-6.

The only law was to circumcise your child at 8 days. I am still amazed how few know this.

Notice how Paul jumped on the Jews who started to obey some of the Mosaic Laws again, Glal 4:9-11. The Law acted as a TUTOR, until Christ came, Gal 3:23-26. Read Hebrews 8:6-13.

Then apparently Paul was in flagrant contradiction with James by this logic. Paul was likely just referring to those who insisted on circumcision, which is not actually commanded, it's optional. What's not optional however is circumcising your child.

Christians are under the Law of Faith, Gal 2:16, Gal 6:2, Matt 7:12.

So Jesus was totally just kidding when he told the Jews to obey the commandments. Who do you think he was talking about by the "least" in Matthew 5:19?

Why did Peter and James not get the memo even long after Jesus died and rose again?

 

[Meshak]

I think he taught obedience to the Law to Jews.

However, he did make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and said that Gentiles don't have to follow the Law.

If what you say is true, then Jesus is lying to His followers to obey His commandments.

Who is the Lord? Jesus or Paul?

 

[kjw47]

If what you say is true, then Jesus is lying to His followers to obey His commandments.

Who is the Lord? Jesus or Paul?

Good day Meshak, Actually Gods word teaches that--LAW will be written on a true followers heart--- it didnt need to be written down as laws--because if one had the right kind of love--no matter what--they wouldnt steal from their brothers or sisters, nor covet their things, nor murder them, etc.

 

[Shermana]

Good day Meshak, Actually Gods word teaches that--LAW will be written on a true followers heart--- it didnt need to be written down as laws--because if one had the right kind of love--no matter what--they wouldnt steal from their brothers or sisters, nor covet their things, nor murder them, etc.

The context of Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant is that the Same Law given to Moses will be the one written on the hearts of those of "Israel and Judah" who adopt the New Covenant, or rather, "renewed" covenant.

 

[Avoice]

And this another reason why trying to follow you is like trying to catch my shadow. I made two points. To which did this answer apply? Which you still haven't answered. When I try and pinpoint an accurate answer or point out the flaws in an apparent answer, you dodge and weave like a drunken master. I'm quite aware that Paul refers to three different laws; the Mosaic Law, the law of faith, and man's law unto himself. The law referred to in the three verses I offered is the Mosaic.
Now, can you use Romans to reconcile those three verses or will you continue to ignore the question I asked earlier as to whether or not Paul can justify his position within the book of Romans with the book of Romans?

Fine Sandy,

(Romans 13:8, 9) . . .Do not YOU people be owing anybody a single thing, except to love one another; for he that loves his fellowman has fulfilled [the] law. 9 For the [law code], “You must not commit adultery, You must not murder, You must not steal, You must not covet,” and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this word, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”

Here Paul speaks of the law-code or Law of God and sums it up in Christ's Law : "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Therefore, we as Christians, are to obey the Law of Love with is the same as the 10 Commandments and deemphasize the traditions of man.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Fine Sandy,

So this means that you are fine with vague and unsubtatiated replies? If so I'll be sure to ignore you in the future. (By the way my teenager replies with the same answer when stumped for a correct answer)