Is The Old Covenant Binding Upon the Church
Debate Rounds (4)
I will be arguing that the Old Covenant, or Mosaic Law, is not binding upon the Church of this dispensation of Grace. Pro will be arguing that it is.
The primary arguments for both sides should be made clear in the first rounds and no new arguments should arise in defence of initial arguments.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals/Defence of Arguments (No New Arguments)
Round 4: Defence of Arguments (No Rebuttals/No New Arguments)
From Romans 5:13-14 we find that there was a time before the Law which was given to Moses. This period of time is described as being from Adam to Moses. This can now be categorized as a unique dispensation which we can call the dispensation of Promise. God promised Eve a kinsman Redeemer (Genesis 3:15), Noah was promised that He would never cause such a catastrophic deluge to destroy the world again (Genesis 8:21-22), many promises were made to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-7, 13:14-17, 22:17-18), and to Isaac (Genesis 26:1-4), and to Jacob (Genesis 28:13-14). John 1:17 tells us that the Law which was given by Moses was until the grace which came by Jesus Christ. Hebrews 9 and 10 tells us of the New Covenant (Testament) which is by the shed blood of Christ our Passover Lamb which supersedes the Old Covenant which was the Law of Moses. So now we have another unique dispensation which we can call the dispensation of Law. The books of Exodus-Deuteronomy detail the Law and its implementation. So far we have two divisions: Promise and Law. Let us now move on to the more controversial divisions.
The Gospel of the Kingdom
Luke 16:16 tells us that the Law was until John the Baptist, and that since that time the Kingdom of God is preached. It should be noted that the Kingdom is also found in the Prophets (Micah 4, et al). Also, the Law did not end with either the birth or ministry of John the Baptist as Jesus Christ rebuked those who would break even the smallest commandment of the Law (Matthew 5:18-19). Therefore we know Luke 16:16 does not refer to the end of one dispensation and the beginning of another, rather, the prophesied Kingdom to come, as well as the Messiah (Daniel 9:26-27, et al) and the one who would prepare His way and announce His coming (Isaiah 40:3>>>Matthew 3:3, et al), are come to fruition and so the message is "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" This message is one which was given to Israel under the Law (Ezekiel 18:30, Daniel 2:44, et al). The Jews knew full well of the Messiah as is evident in some of the peoples' remarks concerning Messiah (Matthew 2:4-6, John 4:25, et al), and they knew of the promised Kingdom (Luke 19:11, Luke 23:51, et al). With all this in mind, we see that a new dispensation has not yet begun, neither with John the Baptist's ministry nor with Jesus Christ's. The Kingdom Gospel which is the only Gospel preached by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and His disciples in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is a part of the dispensation of the Law given to Israel through the Prophets. Remember, the dispensation of the Law is from Moses to Christ. So if the Law be until Christ (per the book of Galatians and Hebrews), at what point does a new dispensation begin? Well, the New Testament began after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the shedding of His blood (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9). While it began no doubt after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the new dispensation, as we shall see, was not understood until the revelation was given to the Apostle Paul. The Gospel that is preached today is not the Gospel of the Kingdom which was given to Israel, but today is preached the death, burial, resurrection of Christ for our justification, for our salvation! Ephesians 2 details this Gospel very well and by it and other passages, we can surely call this new dispensation Grace (John 1:17). One can say that this dispensation began after the death and resurrection of Christ, but it was not understood, nor was it preached until the Apostle Paul. This third dispensation can rightfully be called the dispensation of Grace (Ephesians 3:2).
The Dispensation of Grace
By now we should clearly see 3 dispensations in the word of God: Promise, Law and Grace. The placement of the first two dispensations is commonly understood by mainstream Christianity (although not always consistently applied, such as when ministers preach the Tithe which was given to Israel under the Law). The placement of the third dispensation, Grace, is not so commonly understood. While surely Grace was made possible by the work of Christ at Calvary, the dispensation had not yet been given to understand until the Apostle Paul. Before we look at the scriptural evidence for this, lets consider a few implications of this truth. This means that the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, et al), is not the Gospel that is preached in the beginning part of Acts. This would also mean that we have to be careful when applying scriptures from Matthew-Acts to ourselves as much of it concerns messages given to Jews under the Law. Now the scriptural evidence is abundant, so I will try to limit what I give to only essential passages, else this paragraph would seem more like an essay! Although mainstream Christianity does not commonly understand that the dispensation of Grace was not preached and understood until Paul, it is actually quite clear in the scriptures. Just as those of the dispensation of Promise knew nothing of the Law that was to be given to Moses, including the Levitical priesthood, ceremonial ordinances, etc., so too those of the dispensation of the Law, including the 12 disciples, did not know of the grace that was to come by Jesus Christ. The salvation preached today, which is by the atoning power of the blood of Christ, is not the salvation understood by those under the Law. They looked forward to a future day in which Messiah would establish His kingdom in Jerusalem and bring about a universal and eternal peace, where the enemies of Israel would be conquered and God's tabernacle would be with men; this was Israel's understanding of salvation. When I say "grace," I am referring to the gift of salvation which is received by faith in the power of the blood of the Lamb to wash away my sins (Ephesians 1-2). This Gospel was given to the Apostle Paul after his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). The book of Acts does not detail a specific time when the new dispensation was given to Paul, but we know it had to be sometime after Acts 9. Galatians 1 and Ephesians 3 tells us that the Gospel Paul preached was unique and was given to him by revelation from Jesus Christ. When we look at the substance of Paul's Gospel in Romans-Philemon, we get the clear message that we are saved by faith in the atoning power of Christ's shed blood for our sins (i.e. Romans 3:24-26). This unique message, although hinted at in the Prophets (Isaiah 53, et al ) and spoken of by Jesus (Matthew 26:28, et al), was a mystery to all before Paul. So we can safely say, with such passages as Romans 16:25, that the dispensation of Grace began with Paul. So although it was made possible by Christ's work at Calvary, it was not given to know until after Paul's conversion. Compare the substance of the preaching of the Gospel in Matthew-Acts 8 to Romans-Philemon, and you will see that without exception, Paul's Gospel of Grace is different than the Gospel of the Kingdom.
The New Covenant
The term "new," by implication, makes the previous covenant "old." The New Covenant is based on better promises and a better sacrifice (Hebrews 8). There are many differences between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant to cite (http://www.hebrew4christians.com...). The question of whether or not the Old Covenant is binding upon Christians in this dispensation of Grace, given the context of what I have already presented, is a simple matter to address. Galatians 3 tells us that the blessing of Abraham to the Gentiles is made possible by the death of Christ and the faith that has come through Him:
1.) Cursed is the man who does not continue in the law (v. 10)
2.) Christ redeems us from the curse of the law (v. 13)
3.) The law does not disannual the promise to Abraham (v. 17, 18)
4.) The law was added until the promise be fulfilled in Christ (v. 19)
5.) The law is our schoolmaster until faith is come through Christ (v. 24)
The premise of your argument seems to be based on the logical fallacy of false attribution. The resolution for the debate is whether or not the Old Covenant is binding upon the Christian Church today, not about the New Covenant replacing the Old. I have not, as of yet, claimed that the New replaces the Old, nevertheless allow me to address the rest of your argument.
You say, " The only one people like to disqualify is the mosaic covenant." You are right that the other covenants are still in effect, but you cannot compare them to the Mosaic Covenant because this covenant engendered bondage (Galatians 4:24). Israel was bound to do all the Torah else a curse would be upon them (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26). Jeremiah 11 also tells of this curse and how God would depart from them for their iniquities. So unlike the other covenants that were all on God's part to keep, the stipulation of the Mosaic Covenant was that Israel had to continue in all the commandments of the Torah (Leviticus 18:5, Ezekiel 20:11). Notice the language of Exodus 19:5-6; "if ye will obey." This denoted the conditional aspect of this covenant. Notice also Deuteronomy 7:12, "if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep them, and do them." God will keep this covenant with those who love Him and keep His commandments (Deuteronomy 7:9). All of God's covenants have the condition of faith of course, but only the Mosaic Covenant has the condition of the works of the Torah. You have utilized yet another logical fallacy of false dichotomy: the fact that God will keep the other covenants does not necessitate or imply that God will keep the Mosaic Covenant since there were stipulated premises for this covenant.
You say, "These commands are of the mosaic law," in reference to following after righteousness. May I point out Galatians 2:21, ". . .if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." Following after righteousness does not equate to observing the Torah. This is an equivocation fallacy. The dispensation of Grace does not entail observing the Torah but entails walking in the Spirit (Galatians 5). And indeed, the observance of the Torah is contrasted with following in the God in the inward spirit in Romans 2:29. Romans 3 is against your statement; consider v. 21 especially. Righteousness in this dispensation of Grace is not by observing Torah but by the, ". . .faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe" (v. 22). V. 26 tells us that the righteousness of Christ justifies us as He is our propitiation. Romans 4 tells us that righteousness is imputed to us by faith in Jesus Christ. Your claim is unfounded.
You say, "Yeshua in fact kept ALL the law and commands of god." Yes He did, and I'm glad He did, else He would not be able to be the spotless Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world! The dispensation of the Law was still in effect of course during Jesus' life and ministry. He was sent to Israel (Matthew 15:24). Galatians 4:4-5 also tells us that He was able to save those under the Law since He was born of a woman under the Law. But Galatians 3:23 tells us that those who were under the law in the previous dispensation were shut up (or closed out) from the faith that was to come by Jesus Christ. Now in the context of the promised Spirit of God to indwell and guide the believer, God's people are no longer under the Law (Galatians 5:18). The Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, but now that faith in Christ has come, we are no longer under the Law (Galatians 3:25).
You say, "If the law of the old covenant is no more then how do we define sin?" Sin is transgression of God's Law, but this does not necessarily equate to the specific Mosaic Law given to Israel. Romans 2 tells us that the Gentiles who have not the Law, do by nature the things in the Law which is a law unto themselves (v. 14). Of course we know that Gentiles do not keep the ceremonial ordinances by nature, so this must be referring to the unchanging moral aspect of God's Law, love God, love your neighbor, etc; this is the heart of the Torah (http://www.hebrew4christians.com...). This is why a Gentile without the Torah can still be judged by God as a sinner, since their righteousness comes not by the letter of the Torah, but by their faith (or lack thereof) in God. By the way, sin is not lawlessness. That is a bad translation. Sin is not the absence of Law in one's life, but it is the transgression of God's Law, whether written in the Torah or upon the table of the heart (Romans 2:15, 1 John 3:4).
You say, "Why was this promise given in exodus, restated in 1 peter, and carried out in revelations if it is no more?" I think you were referring to 1 Peter 2:9 not 2:10? Since your whole argument's premise is based on the logical fallacy of false attribution (having claimed that I am arguing that the Old Covenant is replaced by the New), your questions are also many times irrelevant. I have no problem with Peter quoting Exodus since the Old Testament is not "no more." Consider the substance of what is being quoted. We as Christians become a royal priesthood and a holy people to God just as the nation of Israel was to be.
You say, "If you believe the old covenant is no more you believe the prophets were false." Good thing I don't believe the Old Testament is "no more."
You say, ". . .what prophecy indicates The 'old covenant' will be done away with." None. This does not negate the fact the Mosaic Covenant is no longer binding upon God's people. Of course the prophets would not speak of this because they inquired of the salvation which was to come by faith in Jesus Christ but were shut up unto the faith that is now come 9they had no idea bout it) (1 Peter 1:10, Galatians 3:23).
Your utilization of Amos 3:7 is faulty. How can Paul's Gospel of Grace be a mystery if they understood it all along (Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:26-27, et al)? Just because certain prophetic truths were given to the prophets does not mean that they understood them all. That blindness in part would happen to Israel, that the Gentiles would be grafted in and Israel removed, that both Jew and Gentile would be made one in the body of Christ, that salvation through imputed righteousness without the Torah by faith in Jesus Christ are all indeed mysteries unknown to the prophets (Romans 11, Ephesians 2, Romans 4).
You say, ". . .the ONLY conclusion could be that we have gravely misunderstood Paul's writings. . ." No I think the only conclusion we can make so far based on your opening argument is that you have gravely misunderstood my position. Again, never did I say the New replaces the Old. So far all you have done is made statements and asked questions which are entirely based on false attribution on your part. You assuredly have not made a case addressing the resolution. Why should the Mosaic Covenant be binding upon the Christians Church. Please do not answer with more questions, but address the resolution by stating your scriptural evidence.
Defense of My Opening Argument
Since your round 1 argument was based on false attribution, there is not much to defend concerning what I have already stated. I will leave you with a few verses to consider to further support my position.
Notice the dichotomy of Hebrew 10 between the Old and New Covenants. Consider v. 9, "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Also notice Romans 5:20 and Galatians 3:19, the Torah was added and entered as God's new dispensation through Moses because of transgressions and that the offence of such might abound. The dichotomy of the knowledge and prospect of sin reigning unto death by the Torah, and grace through righteousness by Jesus Christ is very telling (Romans 5:21). The scriptures are very clear; now that Grace/Faith/Christ has come, Torah is fulfilled and we are no longer under the curse (Galatians 3:13, 25).
Quote #1) "John 1:17 tells us that the Law which was given by Moses was until the grace which came by Jesus Christ." This is biblically inaccurate as there is no "until" in this verse. This one word changes the whole mindset of the verse. one is not "until" the other. furthermore, (John 8:58) says" Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM". Yeshua said He saw "satan fall from heaven like lightning"-(Luke 10:18). With this understanding we see that, yes, grace came by Yeshua, but this grace was issued before He took fleshly form, consider the following scripture: (heb.4:2)- For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.--This scripture states the Gospel was preached In the time of Moses(gal.3:8 says this also). I encourage you to read Heb. 4:8 in context to solidify my statement. This is one of many dangerous errors that occur when my opponent adds small words like "until" into scripture.
My opponent quotes Luke 16:16 in an attempt to give the impression that the law was until John and then the kingdom of God was preached. Taken out of context this verse gives a wrong impression, my opponent conveniently leaves out the VERY NEXT verse: (Luke 16:17)-" and it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail". I will allow the viewer to draw there own conclusion from this text. Hint: Heaven and earth have not passed away.
Quote #3) "the New Testament began after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the shedding of His blood". While I agree with this statement I feel my opponent has again left out the second part of this truth. The new covenant/testament began with the death and resurrection, however the new covenant has not yet come to full fruition, it has not been completed. we still teach others to know Him, there is still a need to spread the Gospel, this fact directly contradicts theology stating that the new covenant as prophesied in (Jer. 31:31-34) has been completely fulfilled. This prophecy is only half fulfilled. consider this, the prophecy concerning the suffering servant AND the reigning King are both in the same prophetic passage. Do you disagree that it is only half fulfilled at this time? (1pet. 1:10) says even the prophets who wrote it, did not fully understand when or how these things would come to pass. This does NOT mean the spirit does not lead us to truth right now-(john 14:26, 16:12). This, also, was prophesied,--(Ezek. 36:26,27). and yes the law should be written on our hearts. The statement "law written on our heart" is said many more times in psalms(not prophetic) then the New testament, This is nothing new, it was ALWAYS supposed to be written on our hearts; (psalm 37:3, 40:8, 119:34), . further more. If the new covenant is complete, What is all the talk of Promises and Hope in Hebrews and else where?? The complete fruition of this covenant is in the millennium!!! This is what we are waiting for!!!!
Quote #4) "The Gospel that is preached today is not the Gospel of the Kingdom which was given to Israel". This is COMPLETELY FALSE and my opponent has ZERO SCRIPTURE to aid his statement. I will, however, give scripture that proves this false. I will again give the scripture I presented once before proving Yeshua AND the Gospel were even during Moses.--(John 5:8, Heb. 4:2, Gal. 3:8). The Gospel of the death and resurrection was also promised by the Prophets(of Israel) as stated in (romans 1:1-4); Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He PROMISED before through HIS PROHETS in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the RESSURECTION from the DEAD. furthermore, Paul warns very seriously about "another Gospel" being preached.--(2cor.11:4, gal.1:6, 7). However your statement indicates there is more then one!? My opponents misunderstanding comes from believing the gospel of the kingdom is different from the gospel today. The only "difference" is they are different parts of the SAME gospel.
Quote #5) "We have to be careful when applying scriptures from Matthew-Acts to ourselves as much of it concerns messages given to Jews under the Law." My opponent HAS ZERO SCRIPTURE to aid this statement. You, my friend, have excused yourself from certain portions of the Holy Scriptures to FIT YOUR DOCTRINE. I BACK ALL MY STATEMENTS WITH SCRIPTURE, YOU DO NOT. You do not believe all scripture is applicable to you, however I BELEIVE...ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness--(2Tim.3:16).
Quote #6) "Just as those of the dispensation of Promise knew nothing of the Law that was to be given to Moses" NO SCRIPTURE TO BACK THIS UP, I HAVE SCRIPTURE TO PROVE IT IS FALSE. (Gen. 26:5)-- because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." I ask my opponent how did Abraham keep the commandments, statutes, and laws if he did not know about them!?
Quote #7) "So too those of the dispensation of the Law, including the 12 disciples, did not know of the grace that was to come by Jesus Christ". NO SCRIPTURE TO AID THIS STATEMENT, I WILL GIVE SCRIPTURE TO PROVE IT IS FALSE. (Luke 24:27)--And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in ALL the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Read in context and you will see, Yeshua taught the disciples ALL things concerning Him. He also commanded them to teach ALL these things to others--(Math. 28:20).
Quote #8) "This Gospel was given to the Apostle Paul after his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9)" OPPONENT HAS NO SCRIPTURE TO BACKUP THIS CLAIM and even admits it in his next sentence. This is a clear example of mans opinion "filling in the gaps" to better suit there theology. I quote nothing but scripture while my opponent ADDS his pre-programmed opinions all over this thing!!.
NOW THAT I HAVE PROVEN MY OPPONENTS FALSE DOCTRINE BASED ON HIS OPINION, I WILL NOW PRESENT A WRITTEN BIBLICAL TEACHING ON GALATIONS 3 AS MY OPPONENT SO GENEROUSLY ENDED WITH IN HIS OPENING ARGUMENT. IT WILL BE IN THE COMMENT SECTION.**PLEASE READ IT AND STUDY FOR YOURSELVES**
You made a claim that I added the word "until" to John 1:17. I would like to point out to the reader that I was not quoting the scripture directly but making a statement in relation to time. I admit that it may have been a misleading statement, but I was merely attempting to show that the Mosaic Law was at least until Jesus Christ. Let me make it clear, I have not claimed that the Law ended with Jesus Christ.
Again, my utilization is of Luke 16:16 is not to say the Law ended with John the Baptist or Christ. In fact, I even stated in a following sentence, ". . .the Law did not end with either the birth or ministry of John the Baptist. . ." You mentioned that I left out Luke 16:17, but I assure you that this verse has nothing to do with whether or not the Law will remain binding upon God's people. Consider that the Levitical priesthood, temple worship, and animal sacrifices are no longer in place, yet these are apart of the Torah.
Never did I say that the New Testament was completed, so I hope my opponent was not attempting to utilize another logical fallacy of false attribution.
I would ask the reader to simply compare the substance of the Gospel of Romans-Philemon with that of Matthew-Acts 8. The disciples knew nothing of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ and His blood atonement for their justification, among other things, until Paul was given this Gospel after His conversion (http://graceambassadors.com...). Gospel means good news. There are of course different "good news" proclamations in the Bible. I have already explained what Israel's Gospel was and the Gospel of Grace preached by Paul in my opening argument under the subtitle "The Gospel of The Kingdom."
You did not indicate that you disagreed with my statement. What you seem to fail to realize is that while all of scripture is indeed written for us, it is not all written to us. Why is not every Christian out attempting to build a massive ark (with the exception of Answers in Genesis of course)? Because we recognize that the command to build the ark was given to Noah. Reading the Bible dispensationally really means you are reading things in context. The context of Matthew-Acts 9 is the dispensation of the Law. I of course believe that we are in a new dispensation called Grace, so therefore we must be careful when applying scriptures from another dispensational context. Jesus, in Matthew 5:18-19, rebuked those who would break even the smallest commandment of the Torah. If you believe like my opponent does, then you would say that the verse applies to you. If you believe like I do, then you recognize that Jesus was speaking to Jews under the Law, but since a new dispensation has begun with Paul, we are no longer under that Mosaic Covenant (Galatians 1, Ephesians 3, Colossians 1, et al).
Very simply, Abraham kept the law that was written on his heart. He of course had no idea of the Levitical priesthood, feast days, temple worship, etc. that was to come with the Mosaic Covenant. I believe this is self evident.
Yes Jesus expounded the things concerning Himself like Daniel 9 and Isaiah 53, but this does not mean that they understood (Luke 18:34, et al). I challenge my opponent and the prospective reader to find one scripture which shows that the disciples understood justification by the blood of Christ and His imputed righteousness before Paul's conversion in Acts 9.
Actually I did give scripture to back up my claim: Galatians 1 and Ephesians 3. See Galatians 2:2 and Ephesians 3:3, Paul was given special revelation of the Gospel of Grace. And for those who are skeptical of there being two Gospels: ". . . the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (Galatians 2:7).
So far my opponent has hardly proven my "false doctrine based on my opinion." Rather my opponent has made unfounded claims as I am sure the reader will see. May I remind the reader that the comments section has no sway on this debate and should only be considered for further inquiry.
I would like to thank my opponent for his time and I would like to encourage the reader to carefully examine what has been said so far by both myself and my opponent.
The law of God is liberty and freedom according to psalm 119:45, James 1:25, 2:12. The law of god cannot not be bondage and liberty at the same time. Paul calls the law Holy, just, and good(romans 7:1) Paul delights in the law according to the inward man(rom. 7:22) This means Paul must be talking about the law of sin and death as bondage in Galations. Paul makes a clear distinction of the two in Rom. 7:22,23. And my opponent is mistaken, other covenants given had a responsibility for each party, a condition. They come in the form of Yahweh saying, "you will do this and I will do this". Read the next scripts carefully and see.--Noah--Gen 6:18, 19, 22:5. Abraham--Gen 17:1-14. And the new covenant has the condition of faith as you stated, and we know that "works" is a part of faith as said in James, in fact "faith without works cannot save you"-James 2:14. Now what are the "works"? consider James 2:8- "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself, you do well" Many do not realize that, at this time, the NT was not in the "scripture". He was referring to the Torah- Lev. 19:18. This was not new commandment, Yeshua taught us to keep the commandments of God. All those with faith in Yeshua are free from the law of sin and death, however, only under the condition you exercise the faith given you, without faith, you are still under the curse of the law of sin and death (eternal lake of fire). I assure you this covenant is no less conditional then any other.
Righteousness does not come from the law. It comes from faith. faith produces righteousness inwardly(rom.4:5)(believing) and outwardly(rom.1:5,16:26)(obedience/works) read Matth. 23. whitewashed tombs Yeshua called them!! outwardly righteous but inwardly dead if you will. you can follow the law without faith and therefore attempt righteousness on your own, without faith, taking God out of the equation.(this is what Paul and Yeshua was against. Consider this; Rom. 9:31-32- but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. According to Rom. 3:31, the law is established by faith. Rom. 2:13-(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.
We must use scripture to define sin, not made up unbiblical terms such as "moral law"(I don't know if you've ever noticed but different Christians have different "morals". what does scripture say sin is!? 1john5:17 says all unrighteousness is sin.(I've already defined righteousness for you). Rom.3:20 says by the law is the knowledge of sin. Romans 5:13--Sin is not imputed where there is no law. 1john 3:4 literally defines sin as lawlessness.(or transgression of Gods law, does not negate the purpose of "law' in this text). Therefore, biblically, if there is no law, there is no way to define sin. What is left is "moral law", a philosophical term that can and does change often according to the individual.
Romans 2:14,15-14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them). Your interpretation of these verses contradicts Rom. 7:7 which states paul would not have known "do not covet" if not for the law. therefore, there must be an interpretation of the "law written on there hearts" that does NOT contradict scripture. We know that king David had the law written on his heart(psalm 37:3, 40:8, 119:34) But yet He meditated on the law day and night!? psalm 1:2, 119:97. We are told to "study" in 2Tim.2:15.(what did they study back then!? there was no NT yet!?) Read about the Bareans in Acts 17:11- These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.(no NT, they studied the Torah!!) If they simply went off the law written on there hearts what was the need to study torah!? I believe the law is written our hearts yes, but not all at once, but in progressive form as we study and read and meditate. Verse by verse, precept upon precept-Isaiah 8:10. This interpretation contradicts NO scripture.
My utilization of Amos 3:7 is not faulty, you simply don't understand what the "mystery of the Gospel" is. I will teach you what the mystery of the gospel is, and I will start from the beginning, PLEASE TAKE HEED AND STUDY THIS FOR YOURSELF:
According to Jeremiah 11:15-17, the olive tree is Israel and Judah. The "jews" are only comprised of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin. The other ten tribes were given a certificate of divorce-Jer. 3:8. At that point they were no longer His people.-Hosea 1:8. they were now the "lost, scattered sheep"--jer.50:6, Ezek. 34:6, 11-12. These scriptures prophecy the messiah gathering the lost sheep. Read them in context and you will find it is specifically to the tribe of Ephraim,(sometimes called Israel) so called because the ten tribes were given to an ephraimite in 1 kings 11:26-33. they are now scattered among the nations and by definition "GENTILES" Now, Ezek. 34:15 and Micah 2:12 show that Yahweh wanted to remarry those he divorced. But Our gracious loving father could not remarry his lost sheep because the adultery they had committed. It was against his own law!! Deut. 24:4, Ezek 20:43, Hosea 4:17, Hosea 5:11, Hosea 6:10, Hosea 8:9. The only way he could remarry an adulteress woman is if the husband and wife died!!!!!....THIS brother, is the mystery of the gospel. The jews did not know how Yahweh could "restore" Israel because they knew full well that His law prevented Him from remarrying them.. The death and resurrection, therefore IS THE MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL.
I will end this debate with a series of provocative questions that I challenge anyone to answer, and see how well you can answer these questions without scriptural contradiction.
The law of God is perfect-psalm 19:7.. can what is perfect be "made better"? (according to interpretations of Hebrews it can). If we have been "freed" from the law of god....Why does James 1:25, psalm119:44,45 say the law of God IS freedom!?psalm 119:143- states the Law is truth.... Did Yeshua's death and resurrection cause the truth to change!?
Sabbath=forever--lev.16:31, covenant=forever--1 chron.16:15, law=forever--psalm 119:160, Word=forever--40:8.....When did forever become temporary!? Does this mean eternal life can become temporary too!?
Rev 22:14 says blessed are those who do His commandments.....Was John ignorant of Pauls "new gospel"?
psalms 1:2,119:70,77,92,174 &Rom.7:22 says we are to delight in the law of God.....Are we now supposed to consider it bondage!? If we are told to walk in Gods law- deut.10:11-13, and Yeshua walked Gods law And we are supposed to follow Yeshua's example 1john2:5,6, 1cor.11:1......WHY DON'T WE!?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were more compelling, here, though both sides had a bit of a readability problem. For future reference, try to break up your walls of text, please. Long walls of text are hard to read. Regardless, Pro seemed to want to focus on the "law" and what that might be, and how it might mesh with scripture--but he conceded a "new covenant". That he conceded a new covenant implies that it's not the old covenant--which seems rather to undercut his case. He argues that it merely adds to, but Con seemed to show at least parts that no longer directly applied, thus upholding the resolution. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.