Is all of the law of Moses finished?

[IBeMe]

ChristRoseFromTheDead says "Salvation is forgiveness for all sin."

Paul says; "remission of sins that are past"

Should I believe Paul,
or
should I believe ChristRoseFromTheDead?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

ChristRoseFromTheDead says "Salvation is forgiveness for all sin."
Paul says; "remission of sins that are past"
Should I believe Paul,
or
should I believe ChristRoseFromTheDead?

I think you should probably use your brain. According to your logic Christ did not die for future sins, only past sins. That means your sins are not forgiven because you committed sins nearly 2000 years after he died.

Past in Romans 3:25 refers to that which occurred before the cross. The word translated sins in that verse is harmatema, which is rarely used in the NT. It means sin-effects, or effects of sins, or consequences of sins. So what Paul was saying was that the consequence of sin (death) that occurred before the cross is now passed over through faith in Christ's blood. The reference point is the cross, not the day that you first confessed Christ.

 

[IBeMe]

ChristRoseFromTheDead
"Past in Romans 3:25 refers to that which occurred before the cross."

That statement makes absolutely no sense.

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

If we read 22, we can see it's totally untrue.

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

ChristRoseFromTheDead: harmatema

It means "sin".

Strong's Definition: From G264; a sin (properly concrete): - sin.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

You have to keep in mind that Paul wrote that from a perspective of living both before and after the cross. So that was his point of reference when writing to the Romans. He did not write that letter to us.

The Greek word is harmatema (G265), not harmatia (G264). harmatema means sin-effect.

 

[jiggyfly]

Is that what it boils down to? You are willing to contradict the Scripture and say that Abraham did not believe so as to justify your own position? If Abraham did not believe then Ishmael would not have been born. Go look in the Eschatology Board: does no one there believe according to your standards just because they do not yet fully understand? It is not unbelief but rather seeing all things according to the eyes and mind of the flesh. The difference is the equivalent of "a child" becoming "a son" in the Kingdom of the Father who is the only Savior, (Yeshua is his right arm of Salvation; the shoulder and breast). However, such things cannot come without faith, patience, prayer, and washing in the water of the Word. This is another error in your positional stance of complete sanctification and justification based on a one time sinners prayer confession and single moment of conversion. To believe ON a name has nothing to do with confessing the spelling of a particular name but rather "a name" is defined by character, attribute, doctrine, and teachings. One must continue in the doctrines of the Master and enter into all of them to fully confess the name of Yeshua. Likewise the same who does so builds his house upon the Rock. The house is not built in a moment and neither with a single block of instruction. :)

Didn't you say "it's not about deeds"?

 

[daq]

Didn't you say "it's not about deeds"?

The man is a vessel or a house and the eye is the lamp which lightens the whole inside of the house.
It is not about what you do with your hands but rather the frequency and purity of the oil olive which you put into your lamps. :)

 

[jiggyfly]

The man is a vessel or a house and the eye is the lamp which lightens the whole inside of the house.
It is not about what you do with your hands but rather the frequency and purity of the oil olive which you put into your lamps. :)

Your posts seem to contradict each other. :huh:

 

[daq]

Your posts seem to contradict each other. :huh:

That is opinion and subjective to the "eye" of the beholder. How often and what kind of oil has the "beholder" been putting into his lamps? Is it pure oil olive beaten as prescribed? Whatsoever a man puts before his eyes goes into his heart like food. Is it clean food or is it considered unclean spiritual food according to Scripture standards? The more unrefined the oil the higher the probability that the hands and feet of the man will eventually acquire an unclean mind of their own and soon rise up against the man to do the things he would not. If therefore your right eye offends you pluck it out and cast it from you lest you be forced in the long walk also to cut off your hand or foot. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore your eye be single-focused, your whole body shall be full of light. But if one eye is an evil nomad wanderer, your whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! :blink:

 

[jiggyfly]

That is opinion and subjective to the "eye" of the beholder. How often and what kind of oil has the "beholder" been putting into his lamps? Is it pure oil olive beaten as prescribed? Whatsoever a man puts before his eyes goes into his heart like food. Is it clean food or is it considered unclean spiritual food according to Scripture standards? The more unrefined the oil the higher the probability that the hands and feet of the man will eventually acquire an unclean mind of their own and soon rise up against the man to do the things he would not. If therefore your right eye offends you pluck it out and cast it from you lest you be forced in the long walk also to cut off your hand or foot. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore your eye be single-focused, your whole body shall be full of light. But if one eye is an evil nomad wanderer, your whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! :blink:

Because I suggest that your opinion is contradictory to itself?

 

[daq]

Because I suggest that your opinion is contradictory to itself?

Not interested in chit-chat but if you are angry inside perhaps you should take it to prayer, (it truly does help). Otherwise if you have any real substance you want to add to the conversation from a Scripture perspective rather than relying strictly upon your opinions of other people and their comments then I might remain interested. :)

 

[williemac]

Is that what it boils down to? You are willing to contradict the Scripture and say that Abraham did not believe so as to justify your own position? If Abraham did not believe then Ishmael would not have been born. Go look in the Eschatology Board: does no one there believe according to your standards just because they do not yet fully understand? It is not unbelief but rather seeing all things according to the eyes and mind of the flesh. The difference is the equivalent of "a child" becoming "a son" in the Kingdom of the Father who is the only Savior, (Yeshua is his right arm of Salvation; the shoulder and breast). However, such things cannot come without faith, patience, prayer, and washing in the water of the Word. This is another error in your positional stance of complete sanctification and justification based on a one time sinners prayer confession and single moment of conversion. To believe ON a name has nothing to do with confessing the spelling of a particular name but rather "a name" is defined by character, attribute, doctrine, and teachings. One must continue in the doctrines of the Master and enter into all of them to fully confess the name of Yeshua. Likewise the same who does so builds his house upon the Rock. The house is not built in a moment and neither with a single block of instruction. :)

I could say that you are the one doing all these things that you accuse me of doing. But I will not go there because this is not about me, nor about you. I quoted from Paul's revelation that the first son that came from Abraham was symbolic of the covenant that came from Mount Sinai. He proceeded to call this bondage. He then related us with the other child, which was born by way of promise.
This was not my idea. I simply quoted it.

If we were to go back and recall the events described by Paul, we will see that Abraham was distressed because his wife was barren, so he was willing to have a son with another woman than who God said would be the one through whom the promise would be fulfilled.

Paul did not use positive language concerning this son. There is a reason that this son represents bondage. Abraham eventually had a son with the woman of promise. But in your defense of Abraham why are you forgetting that he essentially committed adultery to get a son so that Gods' promise could be fulfilled? Certainly he eventually believed God. But the course of events leading up to it are recorded. I am not making them up, nor is Paul out of line in calling the first son symbolic of something negative.

ChristRoseFromTheDead says "Salvation is forgiveness for all sin."

Paul says; "remission of sins that are past"

Should I believe Paul,
or
should I believe ChristRoseFromTheDead?

Paul most certainly did not say remissions of sins that are past. He did not use the word remission, nor the word 'forgive'. He said that God passed over the sins committed previous to the sacrifice of Jesus. The passage is not about individual forgiveness nor individual remission of sin. It is about the timeline leading up to the sacrifice of His Son for sin. Go back and read the passage.

1John 2:1 stats that if we sin we have an advocate with the father. This indicates that the sacrifice we are under includes future sin as well as past sin. This is why it was only offered once. If it only covered our past sins then it was not better than the blood of bulls and goats. The author of Hebrews went into great detail to perish that thought. He event went so far as to say that God has perfected forever (past tense) those who are being sanctified.
Salvation is God's work in us and for us, not our work for ourselves or for Him. Otherwise we would have something of which to boast.

Having begun in the Spirit, are we now being made complete through our own works in the flesh? We began by way of faith. We finish by way of faith. Our works and obedience are simply about future position and reward in the Kingdom. They are not about our survival.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

1John 2:1 stats that if we sin we have an advocate with the father. This indicates that the sacrifice we are under includes future sin as well as past sin. This is why it was only offered once. If it only covered our past sins then it was not better than the blood of bulls and goats. The author of Hebrews went into great detail to perish that thought. He event went so far as to say that God has perfected forever (past tense) those who are being sanctified.

This is a great point. It almost seems that people who think that Christ's sacrifice only covers past sins consider his sacrifice to be a super sacrifice that covers a lot of past sins, but when they need forgiveness for anything after that they have to crucify Christ again.

 

[daq]

I could say that you are the one doing all these things that you accuse me of doing. But I will not go there because this is not about me, nor about you. I quoted from Paul's revelation that the first son that came from Abraham was symbolic of the covenant that came from Mount Sinai. He proceeded to call this bondage. He then related us with the other child, which was born by way of promise.
This was not my idea. I simply quoted it.

If we were to go back and recall the events described by Paul, we will see that Abraham was distressed because his wife was barren, so he was willing to have a son with another woman than who God said would be the one through whom the promise would be fulfilled.

Paul did not use positive language concerning this son. There is a reason that this son represents bondage. Abraham eventually had a son with the woman of promise. But in your defense of Abraham why are you forgetting that he essentially committed adultery to get a son so that Gods' promise could be fulfilled? Certainly he eventually believed God. But the course of events leading up to it are recorded. I am not making them up, nor is Paul out of line in calling the first son symbolic of something negative.

No you cannot say the same of me because it is you that has suggested Abraham still suffered from unbelief when Moses and James say he believed God and it was reckoned to him as rightness. You have overthrown the very foundations of what you claim to believe because you are not willing to admit that a walk with God is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God. Perhaps the reason your paradigm will not allow you to admit the truth is because you have a misunderstanding of the "righteousness" that is spoken of in the passage. This "rightness" is "moral uprightness" as opposed to being imputed with "holy perfection" (there is none righteous). God knew that Abraham would do the right thing by faith when the time came to be put to the test. However, you apparently refuse to believe that you will ever be tested to prove your faith despite manifold Scripture warnings to the contrary, (including "testing the spirits" with their doctrines). Abraham was promised that his descendants would be as the stars of heaven for multitude and he believed God even though he did not fully understand how it would come to pass at that point. The episode with Hagar was not a "lack of faith" (for Ishmael did indeed come forth from Abraham's own "bowels" as the passage states) but rather Abraham acted out what he knew to be true; albeit through the flesh rather than according to the Spirit of the meaning of the promised son. Yet, like a child, Abraham learned over time as we all must do and was finally tested after some 20-45 years of WALKING BY FAITH with God. Just as James states; the works of Abraham, (a walk in patience and faith over time) proved that his faith was real and then his faith bore fruit.

This is an empty theology when the works that Abraham did are removed or ignored.
Most people quote the following at this point but I do so to make a different point than the usual:

James 2:21-23 KJV
21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23. And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Genesis 15:1-6 KJV
1. After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2. And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
3. And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4. And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Where and when is this fulfilled according to James?

Genesis 22:1-2 KJV
1. And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

The span of time between these events is estimated anywhere between 25 to 45 years depending on the age of Isaac. :)

The works of Abraham are a continual walk in faithfulness believing all things God spoke to him:
Even a resurrection of his only son Isaac if need be so as to fulfill the promise given him.

 

[IBeMe]

ChristRoseFromTheDead
You have to keep in mind that Paul wrote that from a perspective of living both before and after the cross. So that was his point of reference when writing to the Romans. He did not write that letter to us.

The Greek word is harmatema (G265), not harmatia (G264). harmatema means sin-effect.
==========
ChristRoseFromTheDead: 'You have to keep in mind that Paul ...'

All I have to do is read.
Salvation is for "remission of sins that are past."

ChristRoseFromTheDead: 'Paul wrote that from a perspective of living both before and after the cross'

You're just making that up and the statement makes no sense.

Paul is specific; "righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:..."

And Paul is specific; "sins that are past."

Rom 3:21-26 is one sentence.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[jiggyfly]

ChristRoseFromTheDead
You have to keep in mind that Paul wrote that from a perspective of living both before and after the cross. So that was his point of reference when writing to the Romans. He did not write that letter to us.

Well then "keep in mind" that none of the scriptures were written to us, but they are still beneficial to us. Many quote James but his letter was only to Israel and the same is true of most of the OT. Considering this, the points made in discussion by many here including your's would be muted.

 

[daq]

You have to keep in mind that Paul wrote that from a perspective of living both before and after the cross. So that was his point of reference when writing to the Romans. He did not write that letter to us.

The Greek word is harmatema (G265), not harmatia (G264). harmatema means sin-effect.

Well then "keep in mind" that none of the scriptures were written to us, but they are still beneficial to us. Many quote James but his letter was only to Israel and the same is true of most of the OT. Considering this, the points made in discussion by many here including your's would be muted.

Matthew 15:21-28 KJV
21. Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

The Canaanite woman of Tyre was willing to be a dog under the table of the Master and be "graffed" into the fold.
It is we who must change our own mindsets because Yeshua will not be changing his mind for anyone:

"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" . . .

Oh well . . . :)

 

[jiggyfly]

Matthew 15:21-28 KJV
21. Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

The Canaanite woman of Tyre was willing to be a dog under the table of the Master and be "graffed" into the fold.
It is we who must change our own mindsets because Yeshua will not be changing his mind for anyone:

"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" . . .

Oh well . . . :)

Indeed, but the problem is with the many different opinions we hold about what Christ's mind is exactly. This is where our minds need changed the most, in my opinion of course.

 

[marksman]

If you think about this logically, you cannot dismiss the 10 commandments especially the fourth one.

It has been said here that the 10 commandments apply but not the fourth one. Who says so?

Not the scriptures and the comment about the church and the first day of the week is wrong. In the Greek it is not the first day of the week, it is "one of the sabbaths" = Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.

At the same time people are getting the law and the ordinances mixed up. The law is the 10 commandments given by God. Ordinances are guidelines for day to day living and do not have the same authority as the 10 commandments.

You will notice that the religious people added to, altered and interpreted the ordinances and Jesus condemned them for doing so. No mention is made however of the 10 commandments because they were never altered or changed by them.

If you say the 10 commandments are irrelevant then it means it is OK to murder someone. If you say the 10 commandments are relevant except number four, you have to show that it is not relevant especially as the New Testament Church kept the Jewish sabbath.

Under the Old Covenant the 10 commandments were a threat. You do this and....

Under the New Covenant they are a promise. Because you are born again, you won't be punished for any breach of the law because your sin has been covered by the blood of Jesus.

Personally I don't see the 10 commandments as a threat. I see them as a blessing as I can live my life by them and be blessed for now and all time. As a result, I don't feel that I am under the law because it is a choice I make to abide by the truths of them.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Well then "keep in mind" that none of the scriptures were written to us, but they are still beneficial to us. Many quote James but his letter was only to Israel and the same is true of most of the OT. Considering this, the points made in discussion by many here including your's would be muted.

Technically, all who are in Christ are Israel. The context of letters with regard to time and dispensation is important, but in some way or another the message is for all Israel.

 

[williemac]

No you cannot say the same of me because it is you that has suggested Abraham still suffered from unbelief when Moses and James say he believed God and it was reckoned to him as rightness. You have overthrown the very foundations of what you claim to believe because you are not willing to admit that a walk with God is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God. Perhaps the reason your paradigm will not allow you to admit the truth is because you have a misunderstanding of the "righteousness" that is spoken of in the passage. This "rightness" is "moral uprightness" as opposed to being imputed with "holy perfection" (there is none righteous). God knew that Abraham would do the right thing by faith when the time came to be put to the test. However, you apparently refuse to believe that you will ever be tested to prove your faith despite manifold Scripture warnings to the contrary, (including "testing the spirits" with their doctrines). Abraham was promised that his descendants would be as the stars of heaven for multitude and he believed God even though he did not fully understand how it would come to pass at that point. The episode with Hagar was not a "lack of faith" (for Ishmael did indeed come forth from Abraham's own "bowels" as the passage states) but rather Abraham acted out what he knew to be true; albeit through the flesh rather than according to the Spirit of the meaning of the promised son. Yet, like a child, Abraham learned over time as we all must do and was finally tested after some 20-45 years of WALKING BY FAITH with God. Just as James states; the works of Abraham, (a walk in patience and faith over time) proved that his faith was real and then his faith bore fruit.


The works of Abraham are a continual walk in faithfulness believing all things God spoke to him:
Even a resurrection of his only son Isaac if need be so as to fulfill the promise given him.

Sorry, but I have been out of town. But I would like to clarify something here. It would have been nice if you had simply stuck to the reference that I used concerning Abraham. I quoted from Paul's letter to the Galatians concerning the two sons that Abraham had. This is relevant to the topic at hand, being the law of Moses. The first son from Abraham is symbolic of the covenant of law that came down from Mount Sinai, and it gives birth to bondage, as Paul said. We can gloss it over by saying that Abraham was merely learning over time. However, the significance of his attempt to produce a son from another source than whom God promised it would happen, is what it is. And furthermore, Paul used it to make a comparison between works and faith...between law and grace. I didn't make that up. You as well admit that his first son was of the flesh. This was not an attack against Abraham on your part, my part, nor on Paul's part, nor was it a refusal to acknowledge Abraham's faith on my part or on Paul's part. Putting words in my mouth or attacking my own "apparent" agenda is nothing more than a diversion from the topic at hand. This is not about me. This is not about winning by way of invalidating the opponent.

If you have followed my posts at all, you would know that I have never denied the importance of our walk with God and the importance of right living. My emphasis is and has always been on the motives for these. As we can learn from Paul's letter, it is not really the law that Paul was attacking, but rather he was correcting their attempt to be 'justified' by law. This is all about motive. Thanks for your time.