Do you keep the seventh day Sabbath, the dietary laws, do you pay interest, do you wear clothing with mixed fibers? Those are the laws that are binding upon God's people. They are commandments, not part of the sacrificial system that was done away with.
Agreed. No doubt about it, but then this applies to all of God's commandments. So there's an immediate problem here because not only do Christians not keep the seventh Day Sabbath, the dietary laws, the 7th commandment, the laws against engaging in usury, mixing fibers, etc., they quite simply justify these transgressions of God's law as well which is itself an abomination. Luke 16:15
You're the one who is making the broad statement here, not me. Your statement is taken by most to include keeping the commandments themselves. Paul even understands it this way when he points out that it cannot be by "will or effort" Romans 9:16. No one is saved by the works of the law. We are not justified by the works of the law, but by faith alone. Of course this isn't to say that those who keep the law aren't justified. They most certainly are if it is due to this systemic process. See the difference?
I'm not presenting tautologies here either. Strawman argument.
Then I don't know what your argument has morphed into now. You've basically taken my position. So I don't have anything to disagree with here.
I have never denied that faith is what saves. In fact, I've quoted Paul's statement supporting that teaching repeatedly.
Strawman, and Non Sequitur. You're engaging in semantics.
Go ahead and show where I've made that claim. When Paul claims that circumcision benefits if one keep the law, he is explicitly referring to the physical circumcision that the Mosaic law ordains to enter into their covenant with God. He is not referring to the circumcision of the heart there.
Then why did you claim it does? You explicitly contrasted one with the other. Here's what you posted:
"Another entering into His rest, which He does by entering in. The Sabbath where it is not about self-maintenance or working,"
This is distinguishing one from the one that is about self-maintenance and working. If you're going to say that it isn't about self maintenance and working, then there's no point in saying it at all. Now you're saying "It doesn't". Are you retracting your claim now? if so, why? If not, then what proof do you have that the seventh day Sabbath that is kept around the world even today by observant Jews, 7th Day Adventists, etc. is about maintenance or working? The reason I ask is because at no time have I ever claimed that anyone is justified by keeping any of God's laws. None of the laws are a means of salvation.
Who else would I be referring to? I am not misunderstanding your argument.
NO! Here again, you're conflating the commandments that are kept with the sacrificial system that is done away with through Christ's sacrifice. His sacrifice does away with those sacrificial laws. It is his spirit living in the new creature which keeps the commandments, and renders the sacrificial system redundant. "There remains no more sacrifice for sin" under the New Covenant. Christ's sacrifice only covers sins committed under the Old Covenant because there is no sin in Christ under the New Covenant.
This is too vague. You need to include and define your terms. To say "reduced to what cannot save" doesn't tell us what "what" is referring to.
Basically, you're not disagreeing with me. You just don't seem to be able to follow my argument. You're just saying the same thing I've been saying from the beginning. However, your argument does have some serious flaws, most notably your conflation of the commandments with the law "that was added because of transgressions", and your idea that there's some effective difference between me pointing out that the new creature keeps the law because he is a new creature verses having God's laws implanted in them. There is no difference. You really don't have an argument. You're just pretending that you've made some subtle point when you're just engaging in semantics.
