Pauline Pastor Series of Question -- Anonymized
In 2013, a Mega-Church Pauline Pastor named Jonas who otherwise will go nameless began a series of questions to me. His purpose was to convince me that the Old Covenant depicts Jesus as God; that Matthew 5:28 teaches the necessity of faith alone for salvation; that Acts 15 has words indicating the apostles agreed the Law does not apply at all to Gentiles; etc.
I am thus verbatim including all his argument and each of my replies. I make hindsight annotated comments in brackets -- [ comment ]
This way you can see his proofs, and weigh whether I responded properly to his arguments.
One thing you need to know. Jonas preaches vigorously on his website in videos that the Law was abrogated based upon Paul's teaching. He is proud and vocal about these positions. He claims we become lost for trying to obey the law, relying upon Paul's teachings. For some reason, at one point Jonas tries to claim he does not have these positions. I then advise him I had just watched a video on his website that says the opposite. He does not respond, and drops the point.
Finally, at the very end, when I prove to him Acts 15 was modified -- putting words in the apostles mouth by a 10th Century alteration, and I already discussed this fully in my 2006 book Jesus' Words Only, Jonas stopped writing me back. So much for a dialogue.
I am praying all these years later that he is studying the issues with the references I gave him.
Yet, I assume he knows I was correct on the last issue of Acts 15 which we discussed, and this explains why he never responded. Otherwise, I am praying for Jonas to repent of his doctrines, or come back and prove me wrong on all the Bible-based disproofs to each of his arguments I raised in rebuttal.
If any of you think you can do better than Jonas, by all means. Truth is the goal, not winning an issue. I will post the debate where you best me with proof to the contrary.
Here is the series of questions and answers I gave him in a dialogue that began October 2013.
Jonas 10/4/2013 - Deity of Christ - Inspired OT
What is your position on the Deity Of Jesus? Was he the God of the O.T.? What books in the O.T. do you believe to be the inspired Word of God besides the four Gospels?
My Reply 10/4/2013
Hi Jonas I have an article entitled The Correct Christology. Essentially, Jesus says the Father dwelled in Him (John 14), and thus this renders Jesus divine. As a result, the Father spoke directly through Jesus: "Before Abraham, I am."
I believe the Original Testament has, as God taught the Jews in Numbers 12, a priority of inspiration for Moses, then all the Prophets were secondary to Moses. See my article Jesus' Words Only Principle Explained. I see all those OT works are classified properly as Torah or Prophets, and are inspired at the level indicated by scroll section to which the Jews originally assigned them -- Torah Scroll and Prophets scroll, without exception. To see the assignments, see this graphic.
Then Jews sorted out a third category of "Writings" aka Scripture that Jews classed books that were unknown by the time of Christ whether inspired, or were thought sometimes inspired, and other times not. Daniel was in the Writings section prior to Christ because Jews did not see yet any inspired fulfillments, and it was kept just in case. See article Writings Section of OT. See also this graphic of the 3-fold division, with each book of the OT which was classified as a Writing / Scripture at time of Christ. However, based upon Christ fulfilling Daniel, and Jesus calling Daniel a prophet, that is the one change I would make to the OT as of the time of Christ. I would move Daniel from the Writings section to the Prophets section.
Thus, everything else is in its right section as originally sorted by the Jews to obey God's guidance in Numbers 12. They each have the inspiration as understood by Jews for why they put in each part of canon -- using the criteria laid down in Numbers 12.
Hence, I disagree with the modern publication of the OT that does not separate the OT works into their appropriate original scroll sections. This prevents us from readily classifying the level of inspiration that God taught the Jews to apply - to not exaggerate a particular work's level of inspiration over the work that belonged in a higher level section. "Scripture" was the least authoritative section, and thus assigning anything to that category was a sign of caution, and Jews taught that one had to use careful discretion to find what was inspired, and what was not inspired. For example, hate-filled precatory Psalms Jesus impliedly said were not inspired, as he said "you have heard of old, hate your enemy, but I tell you...."
Of course, don't forget, that under Deut 18, The Prophet to come (Jesus) would have the greatest priority over all, as Moses tells us that every word The Prophet will speak will be that of God -- which was not true of Moses or the later prophets. I refer you again to my article The Jesus' Words Only Principle Explained. That makes Jesus of higher clarity and emphasis than Moses, if you apply Numbers 12 in light of Deuteronomy 18.
Do you agree with JWO? or are you still studying what I am saying?
Blessings,
Shalom
Doug
Jonas' Questions If I Believe NT Gospels Are Inspired
10/4/2013
Which N.T. books would you place on an equal basis with the O.T? ... [Or] would you say no N.T. writing reach the level of being inspired? Thanks Jonas
My Response On NT Authority v. OT Authority
10/4/2013
Jonas
No Jonas, I never have said that the NT works are of lesser inspiration to the OT. To the contrary, I believe the apostolic gospels are fully inspired, and that Jesus' words have a higher authority than Moses's words based upon Deut 18:17-18. Because the Father resides in Jesus, which is unlike the inspiration that Moses had, with Jesus we were hearing the Father speaking directly through Jesus. Hence, I hold the opposite view than what you are supposing.
Incidentally, I see you are "pastor" ...
If that is you, I see you affirm Paul's view that the Law "produced death" -- and "kills people." [Cite omitted to keep this anonymous.]
You say anyone is an "adulterer" if they observe the Law. You identify Romans 7:1-7. But I suggest you read my article Paul Says The God of Sinai is Dead. The husband that died who dissolved the law with the wife (Israel) necessarily was the God of Sinai, and then Paul teaches he betroths us to "Jesus" as our new husband. Have you truly thought through what Paul is saying? It is pure blasphemy -- the immortal God of Sinai is dead, and Jesus lives as our God today.
I teach Jesus' Words Only which Paul even endorses:
Paul states:
If any man gives different teaching, not in agreement with the true words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the teaching which is in agreement with true religion, He has an over-high opinion of himself; being without knowledge, having only an unhealthy love of questionings and wars of words, from which come envy, fighting, cruel words, evil thoughts, (I Tim. 6:3-4, Basic Bible in English.)
As you know, Paul in his epistles never quotes a single word of Jesus except the liturgy in Corinthians [and a single reference Paulinists cringe at and dispute where Paul says the Lord told Paul that he would not remove an affliction from an Angel of Satan upon Paul for "my grace is sufficient for thee." 2 Cor 12:7-9] But Paul contradicts Jesus, particularly on the issue of the Law which is the subject of your sermon I am listening to as I write this. In my article The Contradictions of Paul, I reference this -- and you are clearly quoting in the sermon I am listening to Paul's contrary view, so I won't cite the proofs Paul abrogated the law which you know well. Instead, I will discuss Jesus' contrary teaching:
Jesus's View on the Law. Jesus emphasized the validity of the Law up through the passing away of Heaven and Earth, thus confirming its inspiration and ongoing validity. In Matthew 5:17-19 we read:
(17) Think not that I came to destroy the Law [of Moses] or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law, till all things be accomplished [i.e., all things predicted appear on the stage of history]. (19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (ASV)
Compare Luke 16:17 similarly says at a different time than the Sermon on the Mount -- meaning Jesus repeated the same point twice:
"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." (Luke 16:16-17 NIV.)
Thus, Jesus can never be accused of seducing any Christian from following the Law. Jesus cannot be a false prophet under Deuteronomy 13:5-10 (false prophet is anyone who has miracles and wonders but seduces you from following the Law). Jesus said the Law remained valid until the Heavens and Earth pass away. This passing of heaven and earth occurs at the end of the Millennium. This is 1000 years after Christ's Second Coming, according to the Book of Revelation.
Now you certainly know Paul teaches the opposite. Now apply Paul's own words endorsing Jesus' Words Only as a test of orthodoxy:
If any man gives different teaching,not in agreement with the true words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the teaching which is in agreement with true religion, He
has an over-high opinion of himself; being without knowledge, having only an unhealthy love ofquestionings andwars of words, from which come envy, fighting, cruel words, evil thoughts, (I Tim. 6:3-4, Basic Bible in English.)
Paul is not "in agreement with the true words of our Lord Jesus," and Paul's words thus judge him. Paul says this means he is a person who has an "over high opinion of himself" and has an "unhealthy love of questionings" and "wars of words," etc.
I would appreciate hearing any thoughts you have.
Blessings,
Doug
Jonas Asks Question if Jesus's Words Prove Obeying The Law Is Impossible
10/4/2013
Lets get to my first question? Jesus poses a question to those accusing Him of breaking the Sabbath.
Hi Doug The reason for the question is I wanted to know what part of the N.T. do you acknowledge as being inspired so I would know how to direct my questions. Because I am still unclear I will only use the words of Jesus in posing my questions. Here's my question.
Jn 7: 19-29 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keep the law? Why go ye about to kill me? 20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. 23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? 24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Here is my question? The Sabbath demanded a man not to do any servile work. Those who had a child born on a Friday had a dilemma. Keep the law of circumcision and break the Sabbath or keep the Sabbath and break the law by not circumcising on the 8th day? Can you explain why God would make it impossible to keep the law. I will await your response. Thanks Jonas
My Response: Jesus Was Saying He Did Not Break The Law
10/4/2013
Jonas
Deut 30:11 says obedience to the law "is not too hard for thee."
Jesus was deflecting a claim he broke the sabbath law (and thus was a sinner) by invoking a well-accepted principle that the sabbath is not broken when necessity arises. (Just like "self-defense" is an excuse for otherwise violating "thou shall not kill" in the 10 Commandments.)
The classic example used by Rabbis is precisely what Jesus cited. The Rabbis said this proved the Sabbath can be set aside when a greater moral imperative is necessaary to save someone's life, give medical care, or comply with another law, etc. For the Sabbath was intended for man's good, and setting it aside to do a greater good is in keeping with the Sabbath, and thus not a violation.
If instead Jesus broke the law, and had no excuse, then Jesus was a sinner, and could not pay for sin. Thus, any construction that holds Jesus means it is impossible to keep the Law, and he admitted He himself was a lawbreaker would destroy our salvation. That certainly is not Jesus' intent, and since He invoked a classic proof of how to interpret that Sabbath is not broken when necessity is involved means Jesus was saying He was innocent of actually breaking the law. Just like self-defense is an excuse to "killing" another.
The law thus is true that "the law is not too difficult for thee" Deut. 30:11. There is nothing impossible about keeping the Law, when properly and reasonably understood.
Blessings,
Doug
Jonas' Reply & States His Beliefs, & Asks if Passover Does Not Prove Obedience Is Irrelevant to Salvation
10/4/2013
Hi Doug
Thanks for your response on John 7. I accept your response and hold the same convictions.
Yes I am the Pastor of [ ] as you cited. My Theology is well documented on our web site and make no apologies. It's important to our dialog that we are both very careful not to mischaracterize each other's theology. I am not your cookie cutter parrot preacher. I was saved at the age of 19 yrs old and have studied God's word independent of the influence of antiquated commentaries. As someone well stated "The bible sheds a lot of light on commentaries." The thing that drew me to your material was the thoughtfulness by which you write. You take the time to understanding other men and their theological positions on critical doctrine. This is why I am reading your material before formulating my questions.
Here are some of the things I believe.
1. I don't believe the Law and God are one and the same.
2. I believe the Law to be Perfect and eternal.
3 I believe the problem was not with the law. It was with our ability to keep the whole Law in order to be declared righteous in the Law. James 210 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
4 I believe Paul is not teaching death to the God of Sinai, but rather death to self freeing us from the Law not the God of the Law. While man was married to the Law he could not be married to the Lord. Under the Law God was mandated by his word to Judge man according to the Law. By Himself satisfying the Law he now can fellowship with man and not have to judge him by putting him to death according to the Law
22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: Duet 2123 his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day;
5. I believe my righteous comes from Jesus satisfying the Law in my behalf.
6. I believe when I am measured against the Law the Law declares me righteous because Jesus satisfied the Law in my behalf
7. I do believe Jesus to be the Monotheistic God proclaimed in the O.T.
8. I believe Paul emphatically taught one could lose their salvation by going back under the Law.
9. Col 2:15 Only that in the Law which was against us He nailed to the cross. I am living in all the promises that was promised under the Law if one could keep it. I am blessed coming in and going out.
10. By Jesus keeping the law perfectly it qualified Him to be the spotless Passover lamb that would take away our sins.
11. I believe my righteousness comes from me being made in right standing with the Law.Romans 331 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 84 that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
I am trying to get a better feel for what you believe so I will be able to ask responsible questions.
Next Question? In the O.T. They examined the Lamb and not the person at the Feast of Passover. Same thing when they left Egypt when they were instructed to place the blood of the Lamb on the door post of the Israelite home. The Angel did not ask who was in the house? The angel only looked for the blood. The qualification for one having their sins forgiven was predicated on the lamb being with out spot or blemish. Those who observed the Passover had their sins forgiven for the upcoming year. Passover to Passover. The Passover dealt with future sins and not past sins. Like to hear your thoughts Thanks Jonas
My Reply to Passover Question
10/5/2013
Hi Jonas
Thanks for your refreshing honesty. I once believed everything Paul wrote, and believed just as you do. I too would try to find confirmation in things to fit Paul in Scripture. But in the end, I think this does not work. Thus, claiming one is lost by following the Law, which you affirm Paul teaches (and I agree he teaches that in Galatians), is directly contrary to Deut 6:25. So who do you trust? I suggest we trust God Yahweh and not put Paul above God's word to Moses. These and many other contradictions exist. But I digress.....
So you cite the example of Passover to prove one is saved by the blood of the Lamb without "qualification" obviously to support a faith alone view as Paul teaches.
But then if you are applying this correctly, this means even faith is not a criteria. Simply the "sons of Abraham" who were in those houses qualified by being in those houses during the Passover. And this would, if your premise is correct that the first passover is an anology to salvation, mean "sons of Abraham" were saved by lineage. This is what John the Baptist confronted, and made clear God could raise up sons of Abraham from stones if that is what would create a saved class of people. Instead God wants repentance from SIN - breaking the Law.
So did the original Passover event represent spiritual salvation? If it means what you say, John the Baptist was wrong, and salvation is by being a son of Abraham. But once the Law came, the principle of Passover was extended to include the principle of atonement announced in the Law that came after the first passover. This is how Jesus understood it too. Jesus said His blood was poured out for the "remission of sins." Isaiah 53 says that the servant who suffers does so to atone for sin. The original Passover event in Egypt is thus no longer a way to interpret the salvation principle of Passover under the law. In the original event in Egypt, blood covers and physical death did not happen. It is not a spiritual atonement-salvation event.
What Jesus did is more than what happened on Passover in Egypt; he atoned for sin which was how the Law redefined Passover for the future. That salvation principle of atonement did not arise until the Law was given, which means the Passover event in Egypt is not a proper analogy to explain salvation criteria. The Egypt event does not tell us how Jesus' blood applies to us. Only the Law explains the principles of atonement to use -- which were contingent on repentance from sin and turning to obedience to the Law God gave Moses, FYI.
Hence, the premise of your question is not founded on a proper analogy to the event in Egypt. Instead, one must draw on how Passover was defined under the Law later to know how to apply salvation principles when Jesus died on the cross for our sins.
That's my take on it Jonas. I do love your sermon ability. Very good. I would have said the same things 15 years ago but not as eloquently.
Blessings of Christ be yours today,
Doug
Jonas: Have You Found It Possible Not to Violate Jesus' Command on Lust?
10/6/2013
Hi Doug Had a busy day today. I look forward this week emailing back and forth. I realize from your response to my last email that we believe almost the same. From your perspective the law is to be observed but has none of the consequences imposed by God in the O.T. for not keeping it for the various reason you sited? On the other hand I believe Jesus bore all my judgment imposed by the Law past, present and future sparing me from the consequences imposed by the Law.
Remember Doug in "Jesus words only" he elevated the Law to the thought Life. Have you ever since conversion had a lustful thought toward a woman. When he said if you look upon a woman to lust you have committed adultery therefore looking Jesus considered one who breaks the law. [Emphasis mine].
2Matt 58 but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast itfrom thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Jesus was elevating the Law because the Pharisees reduced the Law to the act of adultery the act of murder? Jesus was teaching all men are guilty and need the GRACE OF GOD!!!
I teach the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was the Law. The law was never intended for man evidenced by the fact God warned man not to eat of it or he would die. Death is the result of breaking the law. Without the Law death was not possible. Because God is a God of equity and a God of his word, God was mandated by his word to judge man according to the law becoming their Judge. By submitting to the Law for their right standing with God man became self-righteous. God never intended nor wanted to be our judge but rather a Father who would correct ,admonish discipline and teach his children. As you see God judging man in the O.T. the bible is constantly showing Gods heart evidenced by His plan (The cross)from the foundation of the world. Jesus came to satisfy the Law in our behalf by bearing our sins and judgment so he could once again be a father to us and not have to sentence us to death. As an attorney I am sure you witnessed Judges who sentenced men to death and go home and enjoy a meal with his family and never think about the man who he found guilty. If it were their son that judge would beg for mercy and would gladly switch places with his son. The cross was in the plan of God from the foundation of the world he took our place. Blessings Jonas
My Reply: The Lust Command Is Far Narrower
Jonas
Just a few comments.
We may agree that none of the criminal penalties apply because Rome in effect still operates, I think you are applying atonement contrary to how God explained it. It is not a permanent excuse for sin. That is, you cannot claim an atonement for sin and never repent and expect heaven. Jesus explained this in His lesson about leaving your gift at the altar. This is chapter one of my book Jesus' Words on Salvation (all free online too). It is a common misperception that because Jesus paid for every sin you may commit, this means all your sin you may do in the future is covered by an atonement. When you sin and don't repent, atonement is pulled back. If you read that chapter, Jesus taught against the contrary misconception (as all the prophets explained over and over again about that error) and Apostle John most certainly said no to that misconception, using Jesus' identical words [as explained in that chapter].
Many before you have used the lust passage to say it is impossible even to keep Jesus' words, and thus 'grace' is inexorably necessary (as if repentance were never a cure).
However, the word in the 'lust' passage that is critical is gunaika. It means a married woman or wife, not woman [in context. See link.] (One cannot use Strong's 'concordance as a dictionary, because it is simply recording how the KJV rendered each word, whether wrong or right. [See link.]) Paul is translated as meaning by gunaika that it is "wife" several times. Eph 5:22, 33; Romans 7:2-3. So Jesus too in Matt 5:23.
Even in context you can see it can have no other meaning than a married woman. To lust after a married woman is known as Adultery. To lust after a single woman is not adultery. Jesus' words were if you lust after a "gunaika" you have already committed adultery. It thus could only mean "wife" or "married woman" in context. (This is more fully explained in my Jesus' Words on Salvation book at page 205-206, ch. 10 on the Sermon on the Mount. Here is link to ch.10. I received a scholarship designation as a "Classic Language Scholar" for my Greek and Latin studies, so I am confident this is correct.)
It is obvious the puritan King James translators preferred to make us feel guilt if we lust after a single woman to protect their daughters. (I am being humorous). But such sexual desire is not condemned in the Law nor in Jesus' words. (Don't go crazy with the permission you think that might imply!...Again, I am being a little humorous.)
But if you are asking, have I ever sinned. Sure. But Jesus teaches us that when that happens, we must repent -- cut off the source of the sinful lust. Or I go to hell. Jesus said that "one who believes in me" if he "stumbles" must "cut off" the source of temptation, and go to heaven maimed, or you will go to hell whole. No faith alone covering, you should note. This is Mark 9:42-47; Matt 18:8-9. I discuss this in chapter 3 of Jesus' Words on Salvation, also free online at this link in HTML format.
So don't jump to the conclusion that obedience is impossible from the KJV mistranslation of "gunaikia."
Next you claim that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the Law, and then claim that God's telling Adam and Eve not to eat of it means God did not intend them to obey the Law. However, this is nowhere in Scripture. I suggest you are reading Scripture from a Paul-influenced presupposition. However, the Law did not exist in the Garden. The Law if anything at that point was God's command not to eat from the fruit of that tree. They disobeyed it and suffered mortality. Hence, the Law there was clearly something God wanted followed -- although it was not the complete law which was to come. To read into the story a presupposition to give it a context it did not have (in order to cast a blemish on the Law) is known as the fallacy of presupposition. See "List of Fallacies," Wikipedia. Just trying to keep it real Jonas!
You mention 'self-righteousness,' and you equate that evil with obeying the Law. But this is not correct. Self-righteousness means using our own measure, not God's measure, of self-righteousness. As I explain in my book Jesus' Words on Salvation, this is the lesson in the Parable of the Publican and Pharisee. The Pharisee patted himself on the back that he did 2 things - one was tithing (which Jesus said the Pharisees were good at, but neglected the rest of the Law of Moses-- Matt 23:23--sound like anyone you know?) and the other was fasting, which is not commanded in the Law. So the Pharisee held up to God an obedience to a self-made righteousness -- fasting -- which scored no points with God. Their valid obedience was to only one true command -- tithing, which Jesus said was the lesser command of the law. Jesus said the Pharisees were terrible otherwise in following any other law. Please read Matt 23:23. (Cast out Paul's contrary statement from your mind!) Is obeying the law a self-righteousness or a righteousness from God? God tells us that obeying the true Law of Moses does what? Deut 6:25 says it brings us "justification." This is not a pompous self-righteousness for obeying our own self-made rules of right and wrong or 'equity.'
Finally, I agree that God's plan was Jesus would pay for all sin. But again, one has to know the principles of atonement, and not misconstrue them -- as God over and over again corrected the misunderstanding that the unrepentant and disobedient could rely upon an atoning sacrifice. God told Saul, the Benjamite king, that sinning and not repenting yet trying to employ an atonement was divination, presumption, and wickedness. Ouch! Again, read ch. 1 I cited above from my book Jesus' Words on Salvation -- free for download in PDF online as well.
I look forward to your thoughts after you read what I have cited above. Iron sharpens iron.
Blessings and Shalom
Doug
Jonas Insists It Is Difficult We Can Ever Obey The Law
10/6/2013
Hi Doug Thanks for your thoughts. Surely if a man is married (I suppose you are) and he looks upon a single woman would he not be committing adultery? Are you telling me Jesus is teaching that a married man can look on a woman and lust as long as she is single? [My bolding added.] Your telling me he is not committing adultery? You are really setting me free and you don't even realize it. (I can be funny too)
Keep in mind I am at a great disadvantage not being able to quote outside of the gospels. Its very difficult for me as you can imagine. I look forward to you asking me questions about the writings of Paul. I truly believe you don't understand Paul's teaching. Paul teaches we are made righteous through the Law.
Rom 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Ron 8:3-5 "3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 10:4 "4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,
(What Paul is teaching is this. The end result of Jesus keeping the Law perfectly and fulfilling the Law was the obtaining of righteousness through the Law for those who would believe.)
Gal 3:21,22 " Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Paul is teaching Jesus was the end result in keeping the Law unto all them who would believe. I believe therefore through faith I am made righteous through Jesus satisfying the Law in my behalf . I think you completely misunderstand Paul. I a perfect when measured against the law.)
1. Adam did not have eternal life. If one possess eternal life it is impossible to stop having eternal life. Its a contradiction. You can't possess eternal life And loose it. ( I am not referencing eternal security) I am addressing your statement about man becoming mortal by eating the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. You say it was eating the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil that caused man to have mortality. If man would have chosen the right tree (the Tree of Life) then he would have lived forever according to the scripture. It was the love of God that put His angels to guard the way back into the Garden less he eat it and live forever. God did not want man to have eternal life in the state of sin so he guarded The tree of Life
Gen 3 the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.
You cannot live forever and then not live forever.
2. I had a hard time accepting the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil being the Law because I knew the law did not come until 430 yrs. after Abraham. I finally realized when Moses received the Law on Mt Sinai it was the first 5 books of the Law!!!!. This would make Genesis to Deuteronomy part of the Law. I teach the law was removed after man sinned so God would not have to send people to hell. "Where there is no Law sin is not imputed". When God did reveal the volatile Law to the Hebrew people God gave them the antidote to one who would break the Law the Pascal lamb.
I also believe the Law served a twofold purpose. One to stop every mouth and every man guilty before God. Secondly so Jesus could be measured against the Law. Jesus was the only one who could keep the Law perfectly because of the virgin birth and his sinnlessness. (Pilate I see no fault in this man) qualifying the second Adam to be the sin sacrifice. The bible teaches "we were born and shaped in iniquity". By virtue of our nature we were incapable of keeping the Law.
My Reply: Adultery Only Involves Married Woman; Question to Jonas On Jesus' Prophecy Against Imposter Jesuses Prior to His Return
10/7/2013
Jonas
Before I answer about adultery, your point, as many before you, was that if Jesus prohibits any lust by any man for a single woman he has committed "adultery" then Jesus gave us an impossible command, and thus breaking the law is necessarily frequent and obviously futile to imagine one can keep. Hence, many before you have argued this command of Jesus proves faith alone / grace is our only hope. But the argument rests on a wrong premise, as I explained at pages 204-05 of Jesus' Words on Salvation. [See this link. It is only a command to not lust after a married woman.] But if the command on adultery was a married man should not lust after a single woman (as most of us effectively vow in the wedding ceremony), then this kind of command is something we can keep, and does not aid the faith alone argument.
But in point of fact, adultery under the law only involves a married woman, not a married man.
“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.'
Exodus 20:17
English Standard Version (ESV)
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor's wife...."
See also Lev. 20:10.
FINAL NOTE: Today is April 17, 2020. I never heard from Jonas again. Please pray for Pastor Jonas. He is a leader of a very big church.
|
Further Reading