Why Is Faith Counted As Righteousness (Ro 4:5)?

[GracePeace]

Since unrighteousness is a suppression of the truth about God (Ro 1:18,19), the flip side of the same coin would be that righteousness is a revelation of the truth about God : when God speaks about Himself, and we adhere to the Word God spoke (ie, God's Gospel about His Son), we are saying, "God is true", thus that counts as righteousness.

Romans 1
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth [m]in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident [n]within them; for God made it evident to them.

John 3
33Whoever receives His testimony sets his seal to this, that "God is true".

1 John 5
10... whoever does not believe God has made Him out to be a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given about His Son.

 

[Soyeong]

Since unrighteousness is a suppression of the truth about God (Ro 1:18,19), the flip side of the same coin would be that righteousness is a revelation of the truth about God : when God speaks about Himself, and we adhere to the Word God spoke (ie, God's Gospel about His Son), we are saying, "God is true", thus that counts as righteousness.

Romans 1
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth [m]in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident [n]within them; for God made it evident to them.

John 3
33Whoever receives His testimony sets his seal to this, that "God is true".

1 John 5
10... whoever does not believe God has made Him out to be a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given about His Son.

In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth and His righteousness is eternal.

The only way to become someone who has character traits is through faith that we ought to be a doer of that trait apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of works in order to earn it as the result. Furthermore, becoming someone who has a character trait means becoming someone who is a doer of that trait, so it would be contradictory to become someone who has a character trait while not becoming a doer of that trait. For example, there is no amount of courageous works that someone is required to have done first in order to earn courageousness as the result, but rather the only way for them to become courageous is through faith that they ought to be courageous. However, it would be contradictory for someone to become courageous apart from becoming a doer of courageous works, and the same goes for becoming righteous. This is why the same faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works does not abolish out need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31).

 

[GracePeace]

In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth and His righteousness is eternal.

The only way to become someone who has character traits is through faith that we ought to be a doer of that trait apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of works in order to earn it as the result. Furthermore, becoming someone who has a character trait means becoming someone who is a doer of that trait, so it would be contradictory to become someone who has a character trait while not becoming a doer of that trait. For example, there is no amount of courageous works that someone is required to have done first in order to earn courageousness as the result, but rather the only way for them to become courageous is through faith that they ought to be courageous. However, it would be contradictory for someone to become courageous apart from becoming a doer of courageous works, and the same goes for becoming righteous. This is why the same faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works does not abolish out need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31).

Agreed, faith is counted as righteousness, and "the Law was not made for the righteous", so we're not under Law; after we receive Grace, our walking in faith reveals God's righteousness (Ro 1:17), not "our own from the [the knowledge of good and evil]" (Pp 3:9), thus the movements of our lives "register" in the Law, as a measuring tool, as "law-abiding" (Ro 2:6-16,26,27, 3:31, 8:4).

 

[GracePeace]

In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth and His righteousness is eternal.

The only way to become someone who has character traits is through faith that we ought to be a doer of that trait apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of works in order to earn it as the result. Furthermore, becoming someone who has a character trait means becoming someone who is a doer of that trait, so it would be contradictory to become someone who has a character trait while not becoming a doer of that trait. For example, there is no amount of courageous works that someone is required to have done first in order to earn courageousness as the result, but rather the only way for them to become courageous is through faith that they ought to be courageous. However, it would be contradictory for someone to become courageous apart from becoming a doer of courageous works, and the same goes for becoming righteous. This is why the same faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works does not abolish out need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31).

Faith in God's testimony about His Son is already "doing the thing God wants you to do" ("obedience of faith", "law of faith"), and the reason is that all righteousness is is revealing the truth about God--when you say "God is true", you are already revealing the truth about God, thus "doing what is right". God saves us through Christ.

 

[Soyeong]

Agreed, faith is counted as righteousness, and "the Law was not made for the righteous", so we're not under Law; after we receive Grace, our walking in faith reveals God's righteousness (Ro 1:17), not "our own from the [the knowledge of good and evil]" (Pp 3:9), thus the movements of our lives "register" in the Law, as a measuring tool, as "law-abiding" (Ro 2:6-16,26,27, 3:31, 8:4).

In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is God's law, and in 1 John 3:7, everyone who is a doer of righteous works is righteous even as they are righteous. Those who say that the law was made for the righteous in order to justify their freedom to be a doer of unrighteous works thereby become someone that the law was made for. God's law was given to teach us how to testify about God's righteousness by be doers of righteous works, not for how to establish our own, so it is made to teach the unrighteous because the righteous already know how to do that while the unrighteous do not. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this is the way to receive grace and has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. It is contradictory to say that we are living in accordance with God's law while denying that we are under it.

Faith in God's testimony about His Son is already "doing the thing wants you to do" ("obedience of faith", "law of faith"), and the reason is that all righteousness is is revealing the truth about God--when you say "God is true", you are already revealing the truth about God, thus "doing what is right". God saves us through Christ.

Christ is the embodiment of God's word expressed through walking in sinless obedience to it, so God saving us through Christ means that He is saving us from not embodying His word by leading us to embody His word in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow.

 

[GracePeace]

In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is God's law, and in 1 John 3:7, everyone who is a doer of righteous works is righteous even as they are righteous. Those who say that the law was made for the righteous in order to justify their freedom to be a doer of unrighteous works thereby become someone that the law was made for. God's law was given to teach us how to testify about God's righteousness by be doers of righteous works, not for how to establish our own, so it is made to teach the unrighteous because the righteous already know how to do that while the unrighteous do not. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this is the way to receive grace and has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. It is contradictory to say that we are living in accordance with God's law while denying that we are under it.

Yep, Paul, inspired by the Spirit of God, deems the Gentile believers, "who do not have the Law", "doers of the Law" (they are doers of the Law without even knowing the Law), because they reveal God's righteousness (not their own) by walking in faith (Ro 1:17, 14:5, 23), in Romans 2, so there's no issue there.

Christ is the embodiment of God's word expressed through walking in sinless obedience to it, so God saving us through Christ means that He is saving us from not embodying His word by leading us to embody His word in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow.

Yep, when Christ enters our lives, we are saved, and He lives in us, and only by virtue of His living in us, and our knowing Him, are we able to live out God's desires.

 

[Soyeong]

Yep, Paul, inspired by the Spirit of God, deems the Gentile believers, "who do not have the Law", "doers of the Law" (they are doers of the Law without even knowing the Law), because they reveal God's righteousness (not their own) by walking in faith (Ro 1:17, 14:5, 23), in Romans 2, so there's no issue there.

That refers to Gentiles being doers of the Torah in spite of not having physical possession of a Torah scroll, not being doers of the Torah while not knowing it. Father requires an object, so there is not such thing as faith without an object. God is trustworthy, therefore the Torah is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7) and it contradictory for someone to trust in God while not trusting in His law.

Yep, when Christ enters our lives, we are saved, and He lives in us, and only by virtue of His living in us, and our knowing Him, are we able to live out God's desires.

Christ living in obedience to the Torah so that is also the way that we live when he is living in us.

 

[GracePeace]

That refers to Gentiles being doers of the Torah in spite of not having physical possession of a Torah scroll, not being doers of the Torah while not knowing it. Father requires an object, so there is not such thing as faith without an object. God is trustworthy, therefore the Torah is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7) and it contradictory for someone to trust in God while not trusting in His law.

Precedent: the Gentile believers are "doers of the Law" without even knowing the Law, because the Spirit writes the Law on their hearts.

Conclusion: Christians don't need the Law to be deemed "doers of the Law".

Why? "God's righteousness is revealed apart from the Law": Jesus's Name is "God Is Our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6), so we have all we need in Him!

Christ living in obedience to the Torah so that is also the way that we live when he is living in us.

Yes and no: Peter ate, with Gentiles, unclean foods, which Jesus didn't do.
Paul says the same: "no food in itself is unclean" (Ro 14).

 

[GracePeace]

Exodus 12
49There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.

When the issue between Jewish and Gentile believers' beliefs on how to live before God arose in the Roman Church, Paul resolved it with "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind": God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, with the result that only breaking that rule is "sin" (Ro 14:23) for a Christian.

No food is "unclean" or can "defile" anyone--unless they themselves believe it is unclean. In that case, the food is unclean for them.

Romans 14
14I am convinced and fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

 

[Soyeong]

Precedent: the Gentile believers are "doers of the Law" without even knowing the Law, because the Spirit writes the Law on their hearts.

Conclusion: Christians don't need the Law to be deemed "doers of the Law".

Why? "God's righteousness is revealed apart from the Law": Jesus's Name is "God Is Our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6), so we have all we need in Him!

It notable does not say that they were doers of the law without knowing the law, so you're making stuff up.

Yes and no: Peter ate, with Gentiles, unclean foods, which Jesus didn't do.

While Galatians says that Peter ate with Gentiles, it does not say that he ate unclean foots, so again you're making things up.

Paul says the same: "no food in itself is unclean" (Ro 14).

While the Greek word "koinos" and "akathartos" both refer to a type of impurity, they have distinct meanings and Bible never uses them interchangeably, so it is equivocation to translate them both into English as "unclean".

 

[GracePeace]

It notable does not say that they were doers of the law without knowing the law, so you're making stuff up.

Do not speak about topics you know nothing about.

Romans 2
13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous.
14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts...

The Law is written on the heart--in accord with the New Covenant promise (Jer 31:31-34).

While Galatians says that Peter ate with Gentiles, it does not say that he ate unclean foots, so again you're making things up.

Acts 10
11He saw heaven open and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth, as well as birds of the air. 13Then a voice said to him: “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!”
14“No, Lord!” Peter answered. “I have never eaten anything impured or unclean.”
15The voice spoke to him a second time: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Acts 11
2So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believersa took issue with him 3and said, “You visited uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

Why did the Jewish believers take issue with Peter eating with Gentiles in their home?
Because there is no way the dietary laws were being "carefully" (Deut 28) observed.
If you know the laws, you know why I'm saying that.
Peter ate non-kosher, just as the vision commanded.

While the Greek word "koinos" and "akathartos" both refer to a type of impurity, they have distinct meanings and Bible never uses them interchangeably, so it is equivocation to translate them both into English as "unclean".

Irrespectively, the rule "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind" (on matters of observing a day, on matters of food--whether you observe a day or eat a food) holds fast.

 

[Soyeong]

Exodus 12
49There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.

When the issue between Jewish and Gentile believers' beliefs on how to live before God arose in the Roman Church, Paul resolved it with "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind": God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, with the result that only breaking that rule is "sin" (Ro 14:23) for a Christian.

In Romana 14, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other over whether or not someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God gave no command to do that. Paul was not suggesting that we are free to commit adultery, theft, murder, idolatry, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, or disobey any of God's other commands as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok to rebel against God, but rather that was only said in regard to disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command.

Whatever is in disobedience to God's law is not of faith (Matthew 23:23), whatever is in disobedience to God's law is sin (1 John 3:4), and whatever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23).

No food is "unclean" or can "defile" anyone--unless they themselves believe it is unclean. In that case, the food is unclean for them.

Romans 14
14I am convinced and fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

Again, the Bible never uses "koinos" and "akathartos" interihangly, so saying that nothing is koinos in itself is not the same as saying that nothing is akathartos in itself, but you are interpreting Romans 14:14 as if Paul had said that nothing is akathartos in itself. You should be more careful not to mistake something that was only speaking in regard to man's opinions as being against obeying God's commands.

 

[Soyeong]

Do not speak about topics you know nothing about.

Romans 2
13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous.
14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts...

The Law is written on the heart--in accord with the New Covenant promise (Jer 31:31-34).

Those verses notably do not state anything about Gentiles not knowing the law, but about not having it.

Acts 10
11He saw heaven open and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth, as well as birds of the air. 13Then a voice said to him: “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!”
14“No, Lord!” Peter answered. “I have never eaten anything impured or unclean.”
15The voice spoke to him a second time: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

In Acts 10:14, Peter objected by saying that he had never eaten anything that was "koinos" or "akathartos" and God rebuked Peter for referring to what He had made clean as being "koinos", but did not rebuke him for referring to what He had made clean as being "akathartos", yet his vision is commonly interpreted as if it were the other way around.

Acts 11
2So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believersa took issue with him 3and said, “You visited uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

It notably states that Peter ate with them, but does not state that they ate unclean animals.

Why did the Jewish believers take issue with Peter eating with Gentiles in their home?
Because there is no way the dietary laws were being "carefully" (Deut 28) observed.
If you know the laws, you know why I'm saying that.
Peter ate non-kosher, just as the vision commanded.

Irrespectively, the rule "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind" (on matters of observing a day, on matters of food--whether you observe a day or eat a food) holds fast.

If you have an honored guest who had dietary restrictions over for a meal, then would you serve them, then would you intentionally serve them things that were restricted? I normally eat meals with gluten, but if I have a guest who is gluten-free, then I don't serve them food with gluten in it and it would be wrong for someone to assume that I would serve them food with gluten. It is not as though Gentile eat unclean animals at every meal, so you have no grounds to assume that just because Peter was eating with Gentiles that he ate unclean animals.

Peter could have obeyed God's commands in the Torah and His command in his vision by simply eating one of the clean animals, so key to correctly understanding his vision is understanding why he refused to do with the Torah permitted him to do.

 

[GracePeace]

In Romana 14, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other over whether or not someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God gave no command to do that. Paul was not suggesting that we are free to commit adultery, theft, murder, idolatry, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, or disobey any of God's other commands as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok to rebel against God, but rather that was only said in regard to disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command.

Nope, the Gentiles were doers of Law without knowing God's "command", so the issue wasn't about that.

If it were, Paul wouldn't have said men were free to observe or not observe a day (God had commanded observance of many days).

God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith (Ro 1:17), thus the rule is "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind" (Ro 14:5), and only breaking that rule is sin for a Christian (Ro 14:23).

God's righteousness is revealed apart from the Law when we walk by faith--God is righteous and won't mislead us.

Whatever is in disobedience to God's law is not of faith (Matthew 23:23), whatever is in disobedience to God's law is sin (1 John 3:4), and whatever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23).

Nah, Jesus countermanded Torah (Mt 5 on vows, Mt 19 on divorce).

Again, the Bible never uses "koinos" and "akathartos" interihangly, so saying that nothing is koinos in itself is not the same as saying that nothing is akathartos in itself, but you are interpreting Romans 14:14 as if Paul had said that nothing is akathartos in itself. You should be more careful not to mistake something that was only speaking in regard to man's opinions as being against obeying God's cocommands

1. Peter ate non-kosher, and the other Jewosh believers took issue with him for doing so.
2. Irrespectively, the rule Christians have is to walkxby faith because it reveals God's righteousness not our own from the law.

 

[GracePeace]

Those verses notably do not state anything about Gentiles not knowing the law, but about not having it.

And how do they keep it? Because the New Covenant is God writes it on the heart. That's the point : we can be doers of the Law without the Law.

In Acts 10:14, Peter objected by saying that he had never eaten anything that was "koinos" or "akathartos" and God rebuked Peter for referring to what He had made clean as being "koinos", but did not rebuke him for referring to what He had made clean as being "akathartos", yet his vision is commonly interpreted as if it were the other way around.

God said eat non kosher food. He went and did it, and the Jewish believers took issue with it understandably.

It notably states that Peter ate with them, but does not state that they ate unclean animals.

Lol You must not be familiar with the kosher laws if you think he had to explicitly eat non kosher animals to be breaking kosher law.

If you have an honored guest who had dietary restrictions over for a meal, then would you serve them, then would you intentionally serve them things that were restricted? I normally eat meals with gluten, but if I have a guest who is gluten-free, then I don't serve them food with gluten in it and it would be wrong for someone to assume that I would serve them food with gluten. It is not as though Gentile eat unclean animals at every meal, so you have no grounds to assume that just because Peter was eating with Gentiles that he ate unclean animals.

Nope, there were no plans. It was all impromptu.

Peter could have obeyed God's commands in the Torah and His command in his vision by simply eating one of the clean animals, so key to correctly understanding his vision is understanding why he refused to do with the Torah permitted him to do.

We're dead to the Law (Gal 2:19).
Peter followed the vision, ate non kosher, and the other Jewish believers faulted him for it.

 

[Soyeong]

Nope, the Gentiles were doers of Law without knowing God's "command", so the issue wasn't about that.

You have yet to quote where the Bible states that Gentiles did not know the law, so what you've made up full cloth does not counter what I said about Romans 14.

If it were, Paul wouldn't have said men were free to observe or not observe a day (God had commanded observance of many days).

Paul was referring to days that man esteemed as a disputable matter of opinion, not to days that man observed because God commanded it. What Paul said about following man's opinions should not be mistaken as speaking against obeying God.

God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith (Ro 1:17), thus the rule is "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind" (Roc14:5), and only breaking that rule is sin for a Christian (Ro 14:23).

It is contradictory to have faith in God, but not in what He has commanded.

God's righteousness is revealed apart from the Law when we walk by faith--God is righteous and won't mislead us.

While we do not earn our righteousness as the result of having first obeyed God's law, that does not mean that our being righteous is apart from being a doer of God's law because the same faith by which we are declared righteous also uphold out need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to it (Romans 3:28-31).

Nah, Jesus countermanded Torah (Mt 5 on vows, Mt 19 on divorce).

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so by claiming that Jesus did that you are claiming that he sinned, and are therefore denying that he is our Savior.

In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he consistently preceded a quote from what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different form of communication is important. Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being taught and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

In Matthew 19:3, Jesus was asked whether a man was permitted to divorce a woman for any reason, so that was what was not the case from the beginning, so again he was not countermanding God. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Torah, so again if Jesus had done as you suggest, then according to God we should consider him to be a false prophet.

1. Peter ate non-kosher, and the other Jewosh believers took issue with him for doing so.

It states that Peter ate with Gentiles, but it does not state that Peter ate non-kosher food. Again, you're making that up.

2. Irrespectively, the rule Christians have is to walkxby faith because it reveals God's righteousness not our own from the law.

To say that God is righteous means that He is a doer of righteous works, so it would be contradictory for God to be righteous if He were not and the same is true for us. The fact that we become righteous apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of righteous works in order to earn it as the result does not mean that we can become righteous apart from from becoming a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law. Again, the faith by which was are declared righteous does not abolish our need to be a doer of God's law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:31). IT is contradictory to have faith in God, but not in His instructions.

 

[quietthinker]

Why Is Faith Counted As Righteousness (Ro 4:5)?​

Because it trusts God's judgement in all things.

 

[GracePeace]

You have yet to quote where the Bible states that Gentiles did not know the law, so what you've made up full cloth does not counter what I said about Romans 14.


Paul was referring to days that man esteemed as a disputable matter of opinion, not to days that man observed because God commanded it. What Paul said about following man's opinions should not be mistaken as speaking against obeying God.


It is contradictory to have faith in God, but not in what He has commanded.


While we do not earn our righteousness as the result of having first obeyed God's law, that does not mean that our being righteous is apart from being a doer of God's law because the same faith by which we are declared righteous also uphold out need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to it (Romans 3:28-31).


In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so by claiming that Jesus did that you are claiming that he sinned, and are therefore denying that he is our Savior.

In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he consistently preceded a quote from what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different form of communication is important. Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being taught and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

In Matthew 19:3, Jesus was asked whether a man was permitted to divorce a woman for any reason, so that was what was not the case from the beginning, so again he was not countermanding God. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Torah, so again if Jesus had done as you suggest, then according to God we should consider him to be a false prophet.


It states that Peter ate with Gentiles, but it does not state that Peter ate non-kosher food. Again, you're making that up.


To say that God is righteous means that He is a doer of righteous works, so it would be contradictory for God to be righteous if He were not and the same is true for us. The fact that we become righteous apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of righteous works in order to earn it as the result does not mean that we can become righteous apart from from becoming a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law. Again, the faith by which was are declared righteous does not abolish our need to be a doer of God's law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:31). IT is contradictory to have faith in God, but not in His instructions.

I'll answer in the morning, God willing.
I'm off to sleep.

 

[GracePeace]

You have yet to quote where the Bible states that Gentiles did not know the law, so what you've made up full cloth does not counter what I said about Romans 14.

I honestly thought I could get some sleep, but it's escaping me, so I might as well be here.

1. The text says the Gentile believers will be justified by being doers of the Law BY DINT OF THE SPIRIT WRITING THE LAW ON THEIR HEART, the New Covenant promise (Jer 31:31-34), and, as Ezekiel says, "I will put My Spirit in you and cause you to walk in My statutes", thus Ro 2:26,27 say the Gentile believers are keeping His statutes.
What is the reason?
Because of partaking in the New Covenant.
Not because they know the Law.
What do they "know"?
God.
Jesus's Name is "God Is Our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6).

2. Paul, speaking with the Jewish Christians, says, "Brothers (for I speak to those who know the Law)," : ipso facto, Paul defines the Gentiles as neither having nor knowing the Law.
(Most of Romans is written to the Jewish Christians : "You call yourself a Jew" 2:17, "Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh" 4:1, "Brothers (for I speak to those who know the Law)," 7:1.)

3. What you're trying to do is contradict the core tenet of Romans, which is God's righteousness--God's righteousness is revealed "apart from the Law" (Ro 3), and by being "not under Law but under [the Spirit of Grace]" (Ro 6:14), but you're trying to say "No, trust me, God's righteousness is not by being under Grace, but by being under Law".
What was it that led to Adam's death?
Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Law is the knowledge of good and evil. Men were made to know God and glorify Him (make Him known) by knowing Him, not by knowing good and evil.
Man's righteousness is by the law, not God's righteousness (Php 3:9). God's righteousness is "from faith to faith", thus the rule is "each man should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Ro 14:5), and when they break that rule that is sin (Ro 14:23). Why? "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith".
lol

 

[GracePeace]

Paul was referring to days that man esteemed as a disputable matter of opinion, not to days that man observed because God commanded it.

No, he wouldn't have been worried about the Galatians observing days commanded in Torah if that had been the case--and why would Paul have introduced the "one law" to resolve the dispute if it were not that there was a thought that what was going on was in contravention of Ex 12?
Clearly, that was the case.

What Paul said about following man's opinions should not be mistaken as speaking against obeying God.

I believe this is a logical fallacy called "Begging the question".

It is contradictory to have faith in God, but not in what He has commanded.

Lol Walking by faith in what God writes in the heart is how we have faith in God and His commands to us (Ro 1:17, 14:5)--accordingly, the danger to avoid is doing anything with doubt (Ro 14:23)

While we do not earn our righteousness as the result of having first obeyed God's law, that does not mean that our being righteous is apart from being a doer of God's law because the same faith by which we are declared righteous also uphold out need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to it (Romans 3:28-31)

Already answered : "God Is Our Righteousness", so "it is God Who works in you to will and to do" (Php 2:12,13), and He's incapable of failing, so those who partake of the New Covenant are deemed "doers of the Law" though not being under Law.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so by claiming that Jesus did that you are claiming that he sinned, and are therefore denying that he is our Savior.

No, Peter says Jesus is the prophet like Moses. Moses was a lawgiver. Jesus is therefore a Lawgiver. Jesus has the right to overrule Moses to establish God's perfect will. (More explained later.)

In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he consistently preceded a quote from what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different form of communication is important. Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being taught and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

No, the Law says to pay your vows, so Jesus is quoting the Law, and He says that THE PRINCIPLE OF "RESPECT GOD" REMAINS, but I want you to respect God even more than by not taking God lightly by not paying your vows. I want you to respect God so much that you don't even make a vow--and I'm saying that IF YOU TAKE A VOW, LIKE TORAH COMMANDED, YOU ARE DOING A DEED OF THE EVIL ONE."

In Matthew 19:3, Jesus was asked whether a man was permitted to divorce a woman for any reason, so that was what was not the case from the beginning, so again he was not countermanding God.

Oops, Jesus validates that Moses permitted them to do so, but, then, says that that was not God's perfect will, but was merely a concession because they were evil, and Jesus is rescinded that concession now.

So, my point stands : Jesus overruled Torah, and those in whom God puts His Spirit do not walk in every aspect of it, but do fulfill its "righteous requirement" (Ro 8:4).

Even Rashi agrees the Torah had concessions--he said the law concerning marrying a captive was only given "against the evil inclination", bc if it had not been made lawful, they would've done it anyway and been made trespassers.

In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Torah, so again if Jesus had done as you suggest, then according to God we should consider him to be a false prophet.

No, He upheld God's standards by stripping away what was subpar.

It states that Peter ate with Gentiles, but it does not state that Peter ate non-kosher food. Again, you're making that up.

Lol the vision told him to eat non-kosher, he shows up without reservations to a Gentile's house, and he eats with him, and the Jewish Christians fault him, and he never defends himself by saying "don't worry guys I kept kosher", he defends himself by saying God told him to eat non kosher food in a vision.

To say that God is righteous means that He is a doer of righteous works, so it would be contradictory for God to be righteous if He were not and the same is true for us.

Yeah, what's the problem? Only that you want to say God's righteousness is not "apart from the Law" but "through the Law", which is just man's same self righteousness. Haven't you noticed you're always boasting? Why? You're not revealing God but self. You'll never get out of that until you're out of the Law.

The fact that we become righteous apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of righteous works in order to earn it as the result does not mean that we can become righteous apart from from becoming a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law.

God knows His Law--what He desires us to do "for His good pleasure" (Php 2:12,13)--and He works that in us. Welcome to the New Covenant. Christianity 101.

Again, the faith by which was are declared righteous does not abolish our need to be a doer of God's law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:31). IT is contradictory to have faith in God, but not in His instructions.

Yep, we are doers of the Law because God does His works in us--still, also, no flesh will be justified by doing the Law, because man's righteousness is as filthy rags, but when God works in us, by His Spirit, that is God's righteousness, and it is acceptable to God.