Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in [the transgression of the Law], that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to [transgression of the Law], live any longer therein?
Scripture interprets Scripture. God's Word is Pure
Jesus said He came to Fulfil the Law. The word Fulfill (Pleroo') means to Satisfy, Verify, Accomplish & Fully Preach. Jesus came to earth to live by the Law & to Preach it Fully. Any who break it & teach others to are LEAST in Heaven
Hello, I assume that you are here substituting the words of 1 John 3:4, as a definition of sin, for the word "sin" in the verse which you are quoting. A better translation of 1 John 3:4 would be "sin is lawlessness." Transgression of the Law is not sin. This is manifest in how the Law permitted divorce, yet it was not so from the beginning - consider the words of Christ concerning this to those who asked Him about marriage (Matthew 19:8-9). Sin is far more than the transgression of the Law.
Christ did come to fulfill the Law, and He has done so. He taught also His followers to do the same. But we are not in the same position as the Lord was on earth and before the cross. Sin and the Law have dominion over a man so long as he lives, and we have been crucified with Christ, and risen with Him. In Christians who may freely eat whatever is set before them without asking questions for consciences' sake, do not thereby break the law. We are in Christ in Whom it has been fulfilled.
There is no Scripture that says that Christians can eat pig.
The problem is in Western culture we considerer Pig to be Food, in the Jewish culture this was not so. Pig was not an unlean FOOD it was simply unclean.
It would be like if I was to put a Plecenta in front of you and say, what? We can eat anything. A plecenta is not food. Feel free to substitute any disgusting non food item to get the point across. Pigs are not food. Christians can eat any food.
The thought of eating pig may never have come into the mind of a Godly Jew, since it was unclean under the Law, but the word to eat whatever is set before one without asking questions for consciences' sake was given to the church in Corinth, populated largely by Corinthians - Greeks. Greeks did not have inhibitions, I think, regarding eating pork, and would not have observed the clean/unclean distinctions of the Law. Even so, a Christian was to eat whatever was set before him by an unbeliever.
When the question was raised, concerning circumcision and the Law of Moses as regarding the Gentile converts, the decision was made at the Jerusalem council that "they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication." (Acts 21:25). The question which gave rise to the council was whether Circumcision and submission to the Law were needed for salvation, but the conclusion went further to say....
that not only were these things not necessary for salvation, but they ought not to observe these things at all, except the four things listed. These are obviously not for salvation, since it had been declared that this was simply by grace (Acts 15:11), so these things are not for salvation but that which they yet ought to observe. So, it was these, as to observance, and as to circumcisison and all the rest, they were to observe no such thing, not for salvation or otherwise.
Actually the decision was that the Gentiles should keep those 4 rules FOR NOW, "because Moses (the Torah) is taught in every synagoue" in other words, the Converts would pick up the Law as they went along. The first 4 laws given was so Jewish Christians & Gentile Christians can eat together. When Peter says "Be ye holy: for I Am holy" he's quoting the dietary Law! There is no book outside Paul's writings that even HINTS eating Pig is ok, one must conclude then that they are misunderstanding Paul
Well, the words "for now" are not there in the text. it is simply "observe no such thing". The reason that those four things were given is made clear - the reason is that because there were those who preached Moses in every place from of old: it would be an unnecessary exercise of liberty for the Gentile converts to eat these thing which were so abhorrent to the Jews.
Would not Peter have said, rather than "observe no such thing", something like "They ought to observe these things, as the men who came down from Judea have said, but in no way in order to be saved. They, as us, are saved by grace, but must keep the Law." I don't believe that Peter would send them to the various synagogues of unbelieving Jews to learn of them. Ministry is according to Spiritual gift - they would not benefit from unbelieving Jews. They were not to offend them unnecessarily.
As to the thought that we must be misinterpreting the writings by Paul if by him something is brought to us which is not brought by the others, I think this is to fail to see that each brings different aspects of the truth, and Paul was given to reveal deep mysteries. By him we learn the truth of the new man, and in this new man the middle wall of partition is gone. There is neither Jew nor Greek, but one new man. These truths come by Paul.
We know that Sin is the Transgression of the Law 1 Jhn 3:4
With this Biblical definition of Sin, it becomes extremely clear reading through the New Testament that Christians MUST keep the Law. However we are not Judged by how well we keep the Law, but by Grace. This does not mean we can willingly break the Law of God.
Hebrews 10:26 For if we [transgress the Law] wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for [transgression of the Law]
It's amazing how clear things get when we let SCRIPTURE interpret SCRIPTURE & not the "Theologians"
Gal 5:19,21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest which are these... ...uncleaness... ...& such like: of which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God"
This is Paul's declarartion that those who WILLFULY live unclean (including food) will not go to heaven. Jesus says "If you love me, keep my Commandments"
I admire the way all your arguements in your videos are supported by scripture (Its amazing how many "christians" basically preach their own opinions). You seem to me an Honest man with an Honest heart to follow the will of God.
On this issue however I have a problem. If I should prove that Jesus and his disciples kept the 10 commandments therefore christians should too then your arguement I understand would be that they were Jews and we are not
Sorry for my delay. Because you ended with a series of dots, I was waiting for your next comment before I answered. Were you going to add more? I would not say simply because we are not Jews, but because of the position of Christ, and how that has become our position. If I were a Jew before the time of Pentecost, then I must be under the Law. What were your thoughts regarding Romans 7?
1.A man seeing himself in the mirror does not think himself bad at all, until he beholds the reflection of the righteousness of God beside his own righteousness in that mirror THEN he finds himself repulsive
The theme of the Law is Love and God is Love (Matt. 22:37-40)
Dear sir sorry for my slowness again. The Law is all those things which you mention, it is holy and good, it is of God. As you say, it not only is for a standard to show man what he is, but also it points to what the Messiah would be. Yes, the Law will not be effectual in bringing man to a right estimation of his own moral state unless God works in him. Despite the fact that man reacts in haughty pride to the Law "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do" (Exodus 19:8) does not detract....
from the truth that it was not given for this purpose but to show man his sin. That his reaction is the opposite of humility when the law is imposed just shows the moral corruption of man. Even when Christ came, the fullest testimony, men crucified Him while they took care to make sure that they did not defile themselves for the feast. They ought to have owned their depravity in light of such testimony, but they would not, but rather sought to remove the Light which shone on their sin....
So the purpose of the law in causing sin to be accounted (Romans 5:20) is not altered my man not having responded to it as he ought. Christ died on the cross to redeem not only from sin but from the law. The law is not sin, but is condemnation to him who is sinful. Man needed to be redeemed from his place as a sinner in the flesh, and the law applies to man in the flesh and only condemns him. If you compare Romans chapter 6 and 7 you may see a close connection between sin and the law...
regarding the redemption wrought by Christ's death. The verse which you cited to show that we by faith do not make void the law, but rather establish it, is immediately preceded by the verse "Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.". Those who were not under law are justified, and they are so while remaining uncircumcised. They do not come under the law by faith. Deliverance from the Law concerns those who were under it....
Hello, as I am in a hurry now, just a quick response to say that I don't think that the only purpose of the law is for a demonstration of what sinful man is, but it is that. The Law was given for the wicked, not for the righteous: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers," (1 Timothy 1:9). Also, Christians can sin.
Dear Sandra, oh yes, I realize that in the video it may have sounded as if I were suggesting that a Christian will not sin. The point I was making is that the Christian position does not open the door for sin, but pointing out that the Christian has a new nature which cannot sin. He also has the old nature which can only sin. In 1 John, it is he that is "begotten of God does not practice sin." My flesh was not born of God, but of the will of man. My new nature is born of God and cannot sin.
...There are those things which are true of us which were true also of saints before the Christian period, and there are things which we have which are peculiar to this dispensation. Being "born again" I think is common to all saints regardless of dispensation. So "born again" does not take in the full Christian position. Being able to say that "I have died" and am "risen with Christ" is particular to this dispensation. The indwelling Spirit is particular to this dispensation also. In Christ
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in [the transgression of the Law], that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to [transgression of the Law], live any longer therein?
Scripture interprets Scripture. God's Word is Pure
Jesus said He came to Fulfil the Law. The word Fulfill (Pleroo') means to Satisfy, Verify, Accomplish & Fully Preach. Jesus came to earth to live by the Law & to Preach it Fully. Any who break it & teach others to are LEAST in Heaven
SERVANTofYHVH 2 years ago
Hello, I assume that you are here substituting the words of 1 John 3:4, as a definition of sin, for the word "sin" in the verse which you are quoting. A better translation of 1 John 3:4 would be "sin is lawlessness." Transgression of the Law is not sin. This is manifest in how the Law permitted divorce, yet it was not so from the beginning - consider the words of Christ concerning this to those who asked Him about marriage (Matthew 19:8-9). Sin is far more than the transgression of the Law.
cainchristian 2 years ago
Christ did come to fulfill the Law, and He has done so. He taught also His followers to do the same. But we are not in the same position as the Lord was on earth and before the cross. Sin and the Law have dominion over a man so long as he lives, and we have been crucified with Christ, and risen with Him. In Christians who may freely eat whatever is set before them without asking questions for consciences' sake, do not thereby break the law. We are in Christ in Whom it has been fulfilled.
cainchristian 2 years ago
There is no Scripture that says that Christians can eat pig.
The problem is in Western culture we considerer Pig to be Food, in the Jewish culture this was not so. Pig was not an unlean FOOD it was simply unclean.
It would be like if I was to put a Plecenta in front of you and say, what? We can eat anything. A plecenta is not food. Feel free to substitute any disgusting non food item to get the point across. Pigs are not food. Christians can eat any food.
Understand?
SERVANTofYHVH 2 years ago
The thought of eating pig may never have come into the mind of a Godly Jew, since it was unclean under the Law, but the word to eat whatever is set before one without asking questions for consciences' sake was given to the church in Corinth, populated largely by Corinthians - Greeks. Greeks did not have inhibitions, I think, regarding eating pork, and would not have observed the clean/unclean distinctions of the Law. Even so, a Christian was to eat whatever was set before him by an unbeliever.
cainchristian 2 years ago
When the question was raised, concerning circumcision and the Law of Moses as regarding the Gentile converts, the decision was made at the Jerusalem council that "they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication." (Acts 21:25). The question which gave rise to the council was whether Circumcision and submission to the Law were needed for salvation, but the conclusion went further to say....
cainchristian 2 years ago
that not only were these things not necessary for salvation, but they ought not to observe these things at all, except the four things listed. These are obviously not for salvation, since it had been declared that this was simply by grace (Acts 15:11), so these things are not for salvation but that which they yet ought to observe. So, it was these, as to observance, and as to circumcisison and all the rest, they were to observe no such thing, not for salvation or otherwise.
cainchristian 2 years ago
The desticint between Keepin the Law, and Keeping the Law TO BE SAVED is VER IMPORTANT (not yelling Just emphasising :-) )
The Judaisers were saying they had to observe Torah TO BE SAVED, the Apostles Taught no such thing. Amen!
SERVANTofYHVH 2 years ago
Actually the decision was that the Gentiles should keep those 4 rules FOR NOW, "because Moses (the Torah) is taught in every synagoue" in other words, the Converts would pick up the Law as they went along. The first 4 laws given was so Jewish Christians & Gentile Christians can eat together. When Peter says "Be ye holy: for I Am holy" he's quoting the dietary Law! There is no book outside Paul's writings that even HINTS eating Pig is ok, one must conclude then that they are misunderstanding Paul
SERVANTofYHVH 2 years ago
Well, the words "for now" are not there in the text. it is simply "observe no such thing". The reason that those four things were given is made clear - the reason is that because there were those who preached Moses in every place from of old: it would be an unnecessary exercise of liberty for the Gentile converts to eat these thing which were so abhorrent to the Jews.
cainchristian 2 years ago
Would not Peter have said, rather than "observe no such thing", something like "They ought to observe these things, as the men who came down from Judea have said, but in no way in order to be saved. They, as us, are saved by grace, but must keep the Law." I don't believe that Peter would send them to the various synagogues of unbelieving Jews to learn of them. Ministry is according to Spiritual gift - they would not benefit from unbelieving Jews. They were not to offend them unnecessarily.
cainchristian 2 years ago
As to the thought that we must be misinterpreting the writings by Paul if by him something is brought to us which is not brought by the others, I think this is to fail to see that each brings different aspects of the truth, and Paul was given to reveal deep mysteries. By him we learn the truth of the new man, and in this new man the middle wall of partition is gone. There is neither Jew nor Greek, but one new man. These truths come by Paul.
cainchristian 2 years ago
The word here translated "transgression of the law" is only thus translated once in the AV. It is translated as "iniquity" twelve times.
cainchristian 2 years ago
Hey brother, that is interesting could you give me some verses to look up I'd like to delve a little deeper, God bless!
SERVANTofYHVH 2 years ago
We know that Sin is the Transgression of the Law 1 Jhn 3:4
With this Biblical definition of Sin, it becomes extremely clear reading through the New Testament that Christians MUST keep the Law. However we are not Judged by how well we keep the Law, but by Grace. This does not mean we can willingly break the Law of God.
Hebrews 10:26 For if we [transgress the Law] wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for [transgression of the Law]
SERVANTofYHVH 2 years ago
It's amazing how clear things get when we let SCRIPTURE interpret SCRIPTURE & not the "Theologians"
Gal 5:19,21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest which are these... ...uncleaness... ...& such like: of which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God"
This is Paul's declarartion that those who WILLFULY live unclean (including food) will not go to heaven. Jesus says "If you love me, keep my Commandments"
SERVANTofYHVH 2 years ago
Hello Sir
I admire the way all your arguements in your videos are supported by scripture (Its amazing how many "christians" basically preach their own opinions). You seem to me an Honest man with an Honest heart to follow the will of God.
On this issue however I have a problem. If I should prove that Jesus and his disciples kept the 10 commandments therefore christians should too then your arguement I understand would be that they were Jews and we are not
So let's start at Romans 7..........
naciamaJYute 2 years ago
Hello,
Sorry for my delay. Because you ended with a series of dots, I was waiting for your next comment before I answered. Were you going to add more? I would not say simply because we are not Jews, but because of the position of Christ, and how that has become our position. If I were a Jew before the time of Pentecost, then I must be under the Law. What were your thoughts regarding Romans 7?
cainchristian 2 years ago
Im sorry for my delay as well. I just watched your video again to refresh my memory and was startled at your doctrine.
In summary I understand you to be saying that:
1. The law simply points out the weakness of the flesh and condemns sin in the lives of men
2. The christian CANNOT SIN and therefore the Law has no application to the Christian.
My Response:
1. The Law is more than a mirror to man, it is also a reflection of the character of Jesus.....
naciamaJYute 2 years ago
My Response cont'd:
1.A man seeing himself in the mirror does not think himself bad at all, until he beholds the reflection of the righteousness of God beside his own righteousness in that mirror THEN he finds himself repulsive
The theme of the Law is Love and God is Love (Matt. 22:37-40)
Also Both the Law and God are:
Truth (John14:6; Ps119:142)
Righteous (1Cor1:30; Ps. 119:172)
Holy (Isaiah 6:3; Romans 7:12)
Pure(Jn 3:3;Ps19:8)
Stand FOREVER(Jms1:17;Ps111:7,8)
UNCHANGEABLE(Jms1:17;Matt5:18)
naciamaJYute 2 years ago
When we understand the fact that Gods Law is a revelation of himself to mankind then we begin to appreciate who Jesus is.
Jesus was the living Law. He demonstrated the fullness of the Law.
He demonstrated to the rich young ruler exactly what it meant to have no other god before Jehovah
He demonstrated to the Pharisees how to keep the Sabbath.
He revealed to common folk that lust = adultery and hate = murder
Jesus DID NOT annul the LAW he exalted it...before all men.
Romans 3:31
naciamaJYute 2 years ago
Dear sir sorry for my slowness again. The Law is all those things which you mention, it is holy and good, it is of God. As you say, it not only is for a standard to show man what he is, but also it points to what the Messiah would be. Yes, the Law will not be effectual in bringing man to a right estimation of his own moral state unless God works in him. Despite the fact that man reacts in haughty pride to the Law "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do" (Exodus 19:8) does not detract....
cainchristian 2 years ago
from the truth that it was not given for this purpose but to show man his sin. That his reaction is the opposite of humility when the law is imposed just shows the moral corruption of man. Even when Christ came, the fullest testimony, men crucified Him while they took care to make sure that they did not defile themselves for the feast. They ought to have owned their depravity in light of such testimony, but they would not, but rather sought to remove the Light which shone on their sin....
cainchristian 2 years ago
So the purpose of the law in causing sin to be accounted (Romans 5:20) is not altered my man not having responded to it as he ought. Christ died on the cross to redeem not only from sin but from the law. The law is not sin, but is condemnation to him who is sinful. Man needed to be redeemed from his place as a sinner in the flesh, and the law applies to man in the flesh and only condemns him. If you compare Romans chapter 6 and 7 you may see a close connection between sin and the law...
cainchristian 2 years ago
regarding the redemption wrought by Christ's death. The verse which you cited to show that we by faith do not make void the law, but rather establish it, is immediately preceded by the verse "Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.". Those who were not under law are justified, and they are so while remaining uncircumcised. They do not come under the law by faith. Deliverance from the Law concerns those who were under it....
cainchristian 2 years ago
Hello, as I am in a hurry now, just a quick response to say that I don't think that the only purpose of the law is for a demonstration of what sinful man is, but it is that. The Law was given for the wicked, not for the righteous: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers," (1 Timothy 1:9). Also, Christians can sin.
cainchristian 2 years ago
I'll try to give a proper answer soon, but I'm a little pressed for time this evening. Christian.
cainchristian 2 years ago
Great video.
I have some minor questions...but I think we will probably touch those things in the future if we continue to discuss.
It would be regarding "born again" and our new nature (how those things play out in the here and now physically).
For instance, do you believe a Christian could/would lie or steal?
Ahavah8Ahavah 2 years ago
Dear Sandra, oh yes, I realize that in the video it may have sounded as if I were suggesting that a Christian will not sin. The point I was making is that the Christian position does not open the door for sin, but pointing out that the Christian has a new nature which cannot sin. He also has the old nature which can only sin. In 1 John, it is he that is "begotten of God does not practice sin." My flesh was not born of God, but of the will of man. My new nature is born of God and cannot sin.
cainchristian 2 years ago
...There are those things which are true of us which were true also of saints before the Christian period, and there are things which we have which are peculiar to this dispensation. Being "born again" I think is common to all saints regardless of dispensation. So "born again" does not take in the full Christian position. Being able to say that "I have died" and am "risen with Christ" is particular to this dispensation. The indwelling Spirit is particular to this dispensation also. In Christ
cainchristian 2 years ago