• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Another look at the moon landing.

No, they wouldn't.

I have already posted a link to an article which disproves that the moon landing was a hoax.
Here it is again:

Notice the following:
Do you know how radiation works anything made of steel attracts radiation like a bee hive it would have been all through the module . You say two hours ? Try 3 hours . Again they had no protection that could have protected them from such a fatal ordeal. Their space suite had certain elements of metal in them as well
Upvote 0

How do we set aside the grace of God?

The way that someone attains a character trait is a different issue than what it means to have a character trait. The one and only way to attain a character trait is through faith but what it means to have a character trait is to be a doer of the works that embody that trait. For example, the only way for someone to become courageous is by faith apart from being required to have first done enough courageous works in order to earn it as the result, but it would be contradictory for someone to become courageous apart from becoming a doer of courageous works and the same is true for righteousness and every other character trait. This is again why the faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works also upholds our need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law (Romans 3:28-31).

You say the only way to have a trait is to be required to do the trait repeatedly until it becomes a trait.

Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor (grace), but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, NASU

You are changing the meaning of words and teaching a works-based salvation. In your doctrine the trait of righteousness is acquired when one does the works of righteousness repeatedly until it becomes a trait. Yours is a salvation without grace and of works.


You cite: Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. NASU

Paul stated that justification by faith established the law. The law of Moses defined sin, and it defined the blood sacrifices required to get forgiveness of sin.

Hebrews 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. NASU

The law required blood sacrifices to atone for one's sins, even though the blood of animals cannot take away sins. The sins were removed not by the blood of the bulls and goats. The sacrifices were offered by the people to show they believed that God would send them a redeemer. It was the faith displayed by the people when they offered the required sacrifices. When Jesus came his sacrifice established the reason for God requiring animal sacrifices, when their blood did nothing to remove sins, it was the faith that people showed in God by making the sacrifice.

Luke 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. NASU

Did works of the law make Zacharias and Elizabeth righteous?


Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." NASU

No! It was his faith in God's word that made him righteous. It was faith under the law and its faith under grace. Justification by faith establishes the reason God gave the law. Observance of the law did not make men righteous, it was faith in God's word that made them righteous. The OT saints looked forward to the Messiah. The NT saints look back to the Messiah.


Luke 2:25 And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him. NASU


Isaiah chapters 40-66 spoke of the comfort God promised through the Messiah. Simeon was righteous because he had faith in God's word.

Luke 2:36 And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers. 38 At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. NASU


Anna had faith that God would send a redeemer. It is faith from the garden to revelation in God's word that makes people righteous. No one had to do works until it became a character trait.

You are setting aside the grace of God by teaching a works-based salvation.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that He and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to graciously teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life (John 17:3).

In Romans 9:30-10:4, they had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowing Him, so they failed to attain righteousness because they misunderstood the goal of the law by pursuing it as though righteousness were earned as the result of their works in order to establish their own instead of pursuing it as through righteousness were by faith in Christ, for knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. We do not earn our righteousness as the result of our obedience to God's law, but rather the way that Jesus makes us righteous is by graciously teaching us to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law through faith.


While it is true that Abraham believed God, so he was declared righteous, it is also true that Abraham believes God, so he was a doer of righteous works (Genesis 18:19). Similarly, it is also true that Abraham believed God, so he obeyed His command to offer Isaac (Hebrews 11:17), so the same faith by which he was declared righteous was also embodied by being an obeyer of God, but he did not earn his righteousness as the result of his obedience (Romans 4:1-5).


In 1 John 2:6, those who abide in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked, so verses that refer to those who abide in Christ are only refers to those who are following his example of walking in obedience to God's law. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to God's law. Nowhere did God fulfill the law of sin and death, but rather He is without sin.

We embody what we believe to be true about God through our works, such as with James 2:18 saying that he would show his faith through his works, so the way to believe in Jesus is by being a doer of the same works as James. In other words, the way to believe in God is by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits. For example, by being a doer of good works in obedience to God's law we are embodying His goodness, which is why our good works bring glory to Him (Matthew 5:16), and by embodying God's goodness we are also expressing the belief that God is good. Likewise, the way to believe that God is a doer of justice is by embodying His likeness through being a doer of justice, the way to believe that God is compassionate is by being compassionate, the way to believe that God is holy is by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, and so forth. This is exactly the same as the way to believe in the Son, who is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to God's law. This is also why the Bible repeatedly connects our obedience to God with our belief in Him, such as with Revelation 14:12 where those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. So believing in the God's Word made flesh does not refer to something that is an alternative to following His example of embodying God's Word.
Upvote 0

The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

Response:
Faith in Christ does not supplement the law — it supersedes it as the ground of justification.
Obedience is the fruit, not the basis, of salvation.

Supporting texts:
8
  • Ephesians 2:8–10 — “By grace are ye saved through faith… not of works… for we are His workmanship.”
  • Romans 8:3–4 — The law’s righteous requirement is fulfilled in us through the Spirit.
  • Hebrews 8:13 — “In that He saith, A new covenant… He hath made the first old.”
Believers are now under “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2), living by the Spirit who writes God’s moral will on the heart — not by trying to keep Sinai’s covenant code for justification.
In Rom 8:12-13 we’re enjoined to walk in the Spirit in order to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law, so that we may live. The requirements of the law are absolutely right which is why it’s said in Rom 3:21 that the law and prophets testify to this new righteousness given. The necessity for obedience of the law as referenced and described by Jesus and Paul in Matt 19:17, Rom 7:7 and 13:9-10 does not go away.

The problem with the law is that the written code can do nothing to make one righteous; it only ends up condemning one of his unrighteousness, in fact. The new covenant does not have the purpose of freeing us from fulfilling the law, just the opposite. It supersedes the old covenant that only gives us the Letter but does not give us the Spirit by which to actually accomplish what the Letter requires. This is why reconciliation with God is central to the new covenant, so that He indwells us as is meant to be the case for man, as justice and order, themselves, demand. Then and only then can true justice and order begin to reign in him. Then we are no longer “under the law” as the means of fulfilling it, but “under grace” as the means of fulfilling it. The former means I fulfill it on my own, still in the flesh and apart from God, as if I actually possessed a righteousness of my own, apart from Him, while the latter means I fulfill it with Him, the only true source of righteousness, the only true source of love, which defines righteousness and therefore is uniquely capable of fulfilling the law by its nature.

For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” Rom 7:5-6

Incidentally, much of the above relates to why past theologians have associated the Holy Spirit, love, and grace as being intrinsically related.
Upvote 0

Another look at the moon landing.

David that does not make sense. Was orbiting around the moon like a M4 highway other vehicles zooming by ever few seconds. Michael Collins was in moon obit for 22 hours all by himself and he certianly must have slept with no one at wheel
I agree there was no other "traffic", but he certainly would have had other things to occupy his attention. Unlike the supposed motorway driver, for Michael Collins, orbiting the moon would have been a completely new experience.
Upvote 0

Democrat AG candidate called for 'two bullets' in the head of his opponent along with killing his children.

Login to view embedded media

I'm not sure about children, but do attacks on spouses count?


or...


Okay? So let's not pretend it's only the left who can make crass, stupid jokes. I mean sure, you can be fine with it when your guys do it, and clutch your pearls when the other guys do it, but the fact remains: it's all free speech. Telling a bad or tasteless joke doesn't automatically disqualify anyone from any job. Whether or not the voters see it that way, though, is up to them.

-- A2SG, which is why a slight plurality of them voted for a convicted felon last time 'round.....
What is your point? Are you suggesting that Moto is going to dismiss these comments as jokes? Oor that you think Moto is wrong for dismissing Jones comments as jokes? Or you just playing whataboutism?
Upvote 0

Another look at the moon landing.

You realize he was just asking a question?
That he was just expressing doubts abut their first landing - which had happened about 50 years before?

He did not come out with any evidence which said, "this was a fraud".
And why would he have done since, according to you, he was part of the scam and not only knew, but agreed with it?

Do you ever read the stuff you post?
  • Like
Reactions: David Lamb
Upvote 0

Another look at the moon landing.

If you were driving along the M4 at night, would you take your eyes off the road to look at the stars in the sky? Of course not! I have obviously never been in a spacecraft, but I imagine tat controlling it, monitoring it, and keeping up communication with your fellow astronauts, and with Houston, would require all your attention, possibly more than driving a car along the motorway.
David that does not make sense. Was orbiting around the moon like a M4 highway other vehicles zooming by ever few seconds. Michael Collins was in moon obit for 22 hours all by himself and he certianly must have slept with no one at wheel
Upvote 0

Another look at the moon landing.

But they weren’t and there is still no known safe method to accommodate that 3 hour trial by radiation today
Well, there seems no way of convincing you, as you don't believe that the moon landings happened, so it is no use me pointing out that none of the astronauts suffered from the effects of radiation.
Upvote 0

Melania Trump works with Putin to reunite displaced Ukrainian children with families

Really? They kidnap children with the intent of russifying them and now they're trying to paint themselves as some sort of humanitarians trying to reunite children? Then don't kidnap and displace them in the first place!
Same as how peace could easily achieved if only Russia would stop/never started attacking Ukraine in the first place.
Upvote 0

Another look at the moon landing.

Strong in him as I have stated you have your 18 astronauts and me has the Van Ellen’s Belt . They wouldn’t be giving any testimony if they’d gone through the Van Ellen’s Belt . They’d all be dead : )
No, they wouldn't.

I have already posted a link to an article which disproves that the moon landing was a hoax.
Here it is again:

Notice the following:
Some people don't believe in the space shuttle and the missions to the Moon because they think the journey itself was impossible because of something called the Van Allen belts.
The Van Allen belts are huge belts of radiation that surround the Earth. It's been claimed that humans would not be able to pass through these belts without being subjected to lethal doses of radiation.
Radiation sickness occurs when you have been exposed to around 200 to 1000 'rads' of radiation within a few hours.
Two giant swaths of radiation, known as the Van Allen Belts, surrounding Earth were discovered in 1958. In 2012, a third belt was found
The Apollo 11 crew were within the belts for less than two hours during their journey to the Moon, and so would have only been exposed to an estimated 18 rads - well within the safe limit.
Nasa made sure that the spacecraft was well-insulated so actually the average dose of radiation over the 12-day mission was just 0.18 rads - similar to a chest X-ray.
  • Like
Reactions: David Lamb
Upvote 0

#41 in Christian persecution, Qatar.

41Qatar​


Christians in Qatar are either workers from non-Muslim countries, or people from Muslim backgrounds – and the two rarely interact. There are many migrant workers in Qatar who are allowed to practise the Christian faith – as long as they stick to Qatar’s rules. There is an official religious complex outside the capital, Doha, where a select number of churches have been allowed to meet. Qatari citizens aren’t allowed to enter, and migrant Christians must not speak about Christianity to Muslims. If they do, they may be arrested or deported.
Qataris and migrants from Muslim families who have faith in Jesus can’t openly practise Christianity and can face discrimination, harassment and police monitoring. Changing one’s faith from Islam is not officially recognised, which can cause legal problems around marriage and property ownership.
Qatar is increasingly using advanced technology to monitor both citizens and immigrants. This has caused Christians in Qatar to become increasingly careful about their activities. There are few reports of Christians being physically harmed for their faith, because believers from Muslim backgrounds keep their faith secret.
41-Qatar-WWL-2025-second-banner.png

Meet Nadia​

“The risks are very real not just for the individual but also the extended family who are shamed by association. It’s very challenging to find a church and other believers. There’s a lot of fear and mistrust. You could be talking to someone who’s not a believer but is just pretending.”
Nadia (name changed), Arabian Peninsula

What does Open Doors do to help?​

Open Doors supports the Body of Christ on the Arabian Peninsula by organising prayer, distributing Scripture resources, and training believers and pastors.

Please pray​

  • Thank God that so many migrant Christians in Qatar can worship Him in freedom.
  • Pray that native Qataris will be permitted to convert from Islam without repercussion.
  • Pray for protection for nat
  • Prayers
Reactions: Pioneer3mm

No One Is Above The Law

Who is fighting against the rule of law in this country today.

The Trump administration.

Who is committing that popular word “insurrection “ in Chicago and Portland among other places?

Nobody. I wouldn't say what ICE is doing is insurrection, it's weaponization of law enforcement against the American people for the express purpose of terror. The word here isn't insurrection, but State terrorism.

No, everyone on the left does not support violence but far too many do. Fetterman is one notable exception.

What is the purpose of this administration trying to paint people peacefully protesting the violent and unconstitutional actions of this administration as violent extremists? If not to justify violence against those same people, and incite violence against them?

At what point in this unlawful violation of Constitutionally protected rights and liberty are you willing to draw the line, or are you all in in whatever this administration says and does? Where is your moral backbone? At what point are you willing to finally become a person of conscience and refuse evil?

-CryptoLutheran
  • Like
Reactions: Yarddog
Upvote 0

Melania Trump works with Putin to reunite displaced Ukrainian children with families


God bless Melania for her humanitarian efforts.
Really? They kidnap children with the intent of russifying them and now they're trying to paint themselves as some sort of humanitarians trying to reunite children? Then don't kidnap and displace them in the first place!
Upvote 0

10/7/23 Anniversary Hamas Attacked Israel

Those wars were started by the demonic savages of Hamas who use innocent people, including children, as human shields.

Do you believe that Palestinians are human beings created in the Image of God and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect?

-CryptoLutheran
Upvote 0

The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

While I agree that Romans 3:20 refers to two different categories of law, it is incorrect that those categories are the moral, civil, and ceremonial law. The people who speak about those categories of law commonly assume that the people that they are speaking to have in mind the same set of laws, but that is unsafe to make that assumption because if all of them were to make lists of which laws they think best fit into those categories, then they would end up with a wide variety of lists. Moreover, none of those people should interpret the Bible with the assumption that its authors had in mind a lists of laws that they just created, especially when there is no way to even establish that they ever used that categories.

Existence of the category of moral law would mean that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that aren't in that category, however, there are no examples in the Bible where disobedient to any of God's laws is stated as being moral and there is no justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to embody God's likeness through being a doer of His character traits, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. Legislators give laws in accordance with their understanding of what ought to be done, so to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and is therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God. Such as person is disagreeing with God about what is right and wrong and is taking the position that they should lean on their own understanding of right and wrong by doing only what is right in their own eyes rather than trust in God with all of their heart to correctly divide between right and wrong through His law and to make our way straight (Proverbs 3:1-7).
This is a well thought out observation. Here are my comments on your points.

1. The threefold division is descriptive, not imposed

It’s true that Scripture never labels laws “moral, civil, and ceremonial,” but that doesn’t mean the distinction is invalid.
The division is an observation about function, not a claim about how Moses categorized the law.

Scriptural pattern:

  • Moral commands — timeless duties grounded in God’s character (e.g., “You shall not murder,” Ex. 20:13).
  • Civil laws — applications of moral principles to Israel’s national life (e.g., property, restitution, penalties).
  • Ceremonial laws — rituals foreshadowing Christ (e.g., sacrifices, priesthood, dietary restrictions).
Jesus Himself acknowledged a hierarchy and enduring core within the law:

“Justice, mercy, and faithfulness… these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” — Matthew 23:23
He also taught that love of God and neighbor sum up all the law (Matt. 22:37–40), which assumes some laws express the essence while others are derivative.

So while the Bible never uses the labels, the distinction is biblically grounded in purpose and fulfillment.

2. God’s laws are all righteous, but not all permanent

It is correct that all God’s laws are moral when given — but not all are universally binding for all time.
Some were covenantal expressions of holiness for Israel, designed to point to Christ.

Scriptural evidence:

  • Hebrews 7:12 — “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.”
  • Hebrews 10:1 — The law was “a shadow of the good things to come.”
  • Ephesians 2:15 — Christ “abolished in His flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”
Thus, rejecting the ongoing obligation of ceremonial or civil statutes does not imply they were immoral — only that their intended purpose has been fulfilled.

3. Jesus and the apostles explicitly set aside covenant-specific laws

Christ Himself declared certain Mosaic requirements obsolete:

  • Mark 7:18–19 — By declaring all foods clean, He set aside dietary restrictions.
  • Matthew 5:31–32 — He revised Mosaic divorce concessions, citing God’s original design.
  • Acts 15:10–11, 28–29 — The Jerusalem Council determined Gentiles were not bound by the full Mosaic code.
Paul likewise wrote:

“You are not under law but under grace.” — Romans 6:14
“Let no one judge you in food, drink, festival, new moon, or sabbath.” — Colossians 2:16–17
The moral principle (obedience to God) remains, but the covenant expression changes under Christ.

4. Obedience under the New Covenant is Spirit-empowered, not code-based

Under the Mosaic covenant, morality was expressed in statutes; under the New Covenant, it is written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33; Romans 8:3–4).
This means believers do not “pick and choose” laws but live by the Spirit, who fulfills the law’s righteous intent in us.

“Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” — Romans 13:10
To follow the Spirit’s law of love is not to lean on one’s own understanding, but to walk in the fulfillment of God’s moral will through Christ.

5. The moral continuity of God’s character does not require legal continuity

God’s nature never changes, but His covenants can.

  • Genesis 9 — Dietary permission changed after the flood.
  • Exodus 19 — Israel received new laws at Sinai.
  • Hebrews 8:13 — “He has made the first covenant obsolete.”
Therefore, affirming the end of Mosaic legislation under the New Covenant does not question God’s morality — it acknowledges His progressive revelation and redemptive plan.
Upvote 0

Melania Trump works with Putin to reunite displaced Ukrainian children with families


God bless Melania for her humanitarian efforts.
This is woefully inaccurate. Russia kidnapped over 20, 000 children and they know exactly where they are. Claiming that this group of eight were " displaced " on the front line is frankly ,despicable. Where are the other 20K? This article makes light of the real situation.

The real story:

Ukraine and international bodies accuse Russia of unlawfully deporting and transferring many children from occupied Ukrainian territories to Russia.
Estimates vary, but Ukraine has confirmed the identities of over 19,000 children. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia's Commissioner for Children's Rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children).
Russia, while facing accusations and an ICC arrest warrant for the forced deportation of Ukrainian children, still controls their return. Melania Trump's effort uses an "open channel of communication" with Putin to negotiate the return of specific children.
The efforts focus on returning a small number of individually identified children whose families in Ukraine know their location. This case-by-case negotiation is separate from the thousands of children Russia has been accused of forcibly deporting.
  • Agree
Reactions: 7thKeeper
Upvote 0

Hell doesn't exist and there is no eternal suffering, instead bad peolle just cease to exist

Scripture tells me that everyone who loves knows God and is born of God.
What does this scripture tell you?

II Thessalonians 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

Your argument continues to be against the Word of God. You have to realize there are people that do not want to know God. Nor do they want to obey the gospel or repent of the deeds and so on. They could care less.

I understand you toss out everyone who doesn't wear your "brand" to the eternal death camp.
I'm talking about Christ's words in that parable of the sower. It has nothing to do with me. Some receive the Word and immediately don't receive it. They don't believe. Again, they could care less.

and these are they" meaning it's the same person all the way through?
No, they are not the same people all the way through. He specifically separates the groups. He describes separate things that happen to each when they immediately receive the Word so it would be impossible for it to be the same person. It doesn't mean that the ground can't change during a person's lifetime and they later receive it and are fruitful. But it's very clear he's talking about 4 different types of people and how they receive the Word.



So where you read Satan do you just blot that out of your mind or what?
No, quite the opposite. If he and his angels arrive here to put on their show during my lifetime I know I'm to be prepared with the full gospel armor on and in place to fight the wiles and trickery that they produce and to be able to "stand in the evil day". If one falls away during that time it's totally on them. We have been warned. In fact, I probably take him more serious than you do. Because I know he and his will come and proclaim to be God, etc. And will fool the entire world by his trickery, etc. The only way to overcome him is by having that full gospel armor on.

What I won't be doing is going to Judgement Day and stating the devil made me do it. That's not a defense. Any Christian if they choose to has power over the devil through the blood of Jesus Christ. Resist him and he will flee.

It's sad that you continue to give him equal power over the Holy Spirit.
Upvote 0

The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

What this world's religions do not take into account, is who Paul is speaking about in Romans 1-3. Specifically those Pharisees who had been given the Oracles of God, but many didn't believe them. These men slandered Paul, "who damnation is just" and Asked the question, "Are we better than they"? To which he replied, "by no means" as he has already taught before, men who engage in this behavior are "Still under Sin". He tells us that he and the Body of Christ are no better, that if they engaged in the same behavior as the Jews who Jesus said, " Full well reject the Commandments of God that they might promote their own traditions", they would be subject to the same judgment from God. Paul quotes David to make his point in Psalms 5 and 14 and also already declared in Rom. 2 the righteous Judgment of God, "Who will render to every manaccording to his deeds:"

Paul understood that he was no better than anyone else, and would also be judged according to his deeds. You can see Paul's understanding of the Righteous Judgments of God, concerning their slanderous behavior in Rom. 2. "for we have "before proved"both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;" Please see below, where he "before proved".

7 To them who by patient continuance "in well doing" seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 "But unto them" that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, (men who full well rejected God's Commandments) indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon "every soul of man" that "doeth" evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, "to every man" that "worketh" good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Paul understood he was held unto the same standards as everyone else, "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: For God is no respecter of persons.

Paul goes on to quote David's judgments against those men who were persecuting God's Church.

Ps. 5: 5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. 6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

8 Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face.

9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.

This is really important to understand, as "many" who come in Christ's Name, preach that Paul is talking about the Body of Christ being no different than the Pharisees who persecutes the Body of Christ. That isn't what Paul is saying at all, as can be easily seen by reading David's Words that Paul used to make his point.

Keep in mind also Isaiah 1, which defines the Pharisees perfectly. Here is a religion who professed to know God, but rejected His Commandments, Judgments and Statutes to the point of God calling them "Sodom". Yet every week they would show up with the Blood of Animals, as prescribed by the Priesthood Law "After the order of Aaron", to justify their lawless religion. As you can see when you read Isaiah, these "Sacrificial Works of the Law", didn't not Justify their willful rejection of God's Judgments and Commandments. Paul understood this, that the mainstream preachers of his time, still promoted the same Priesthood "Works" to justify them, even though these sacrificial "works of the law", were only a temporary "ADDED" Law, given after the Golden calf, that was only to be in place "till the Seed, (Lamb of God) should come". (Gal. 3)

The Prophesied New Priest had already come, these sacrificial "works" were prophesied to end "after those days". (Jer. 31) But the Jews were still promoting a corrupted version of them, still selling calves, turtle doves and goats for justification of sins.

Paul speaks to this New Priest, and the "Better Ministry";

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith "in his blood", (Not the blood of animals as per the Old Priesthood Law) to declare his righteousness "for the remission of sins that are past", through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Here is the two Laws part.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? "of works"?

(Lev. 4: 27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;

28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

This was the "Law of Works" for justification "Till the Seed should come".

Nay: but by the "law of faith".

22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. As it is written: "The Just shall Live by Faith".

The lesson here from Paul and Isaiah is for me at this time in history, is the same as then. That a man can't live in rejection of God's Commandments, Judgments and Statutes, then show up each week with the Blood of an unblemished Sacrifice, as required by Law, for justification of willful rejection of God's Laws.

For by the "Works of the Law" shall no Flesh be justified.
I am going to try and outline the main points of your argument and add a rebuttal. If I have misunderstood any of them, please clarify.

1. Claim:

Romans 1–3 speaks only of unbelieving Jews (Pharisees), not all humanity.

Response:
Paul is very clear that his argument in Romans 1–3 encompasses the entire human race, not just the Pharisees.

  • Romans 1:18–32 describes Gentiles who reject God’s revelation in nature.
  • Romans 2:1–3:8 condemns Jews who boast in the Law but break it.
  • Romans 3:9 draws the conclusion:
    “What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.”
The phrase “both Jews and Gentiles” shows that Paul’s point is universal guilt, not merely Pharisaic hypocrisy.
He later sums it up in Romans 3:23 — “for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Supporting texts:

  • Romans 5:12 — “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men.”
  • Ephesians 2:1–3 — All were “by nature children of wrath.”
Paul’s point: everyone needs justification through Christ, not just corrupt religious leaders.

2. Claim:

Paul says we are judged according to our deeds, therefore salvation depends on obedience.

Response:
Romans 2:6–11 is not teaching salvation by works; it describes God’s perfect standard of judgment that no one meets.
Paul uses this to lead his readers to the conclusion in Romans 3:20

“By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight.”
The “judgment by works” principle shows that God’s judgment is righteous and impartial — but it also proves that no one can attain eternal life through good deeds (Romans 3:9–12).

Supporting texts:

  • Romans 4:4–5 — “To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
  • Titus 3:5 — “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.”
Thus, Romans 2 is diagnostic, not prescriptive — it shows why grace is needed.

3. Claim:

Paul’s quotations from David (Psalm 5, 14) apply only to the persecutors of the church, not to all mankind.

Response:
Paul quotes Psalms 14 and 5 to demonstrate universal sin, not to identify a single persecuting group.
He says:

“There is none righteous, no, not one.” — Romans 3:10–12
Psalm 14 originally lamented the corruption of humanity as a whole (“The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men…” v. 2). Paul cites it to show that sin pervades every heart.
So his use is not narrow; it’s universal.

Supporting texts:

  • Psalm 14:2–3 — “They are all gone aside… there is none that doeth good.”
  • Romans 3:19 — “That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”

4. Claim:

Isaiah 1 condemns Pharisees who used sacrifices without obedience — just as Paul opposed “works of the law.”

Response:
Isaiah 1 indeed condemns hypocritical worship, but Paul’s critique in Romans and Galatians goes further.
Paul isn’t only denouncing corrupt ritualism; he’s declaring the entire old covenant system powerless to justify.

Supporting texts:

  • Hebrews 10:1–4 — The law and sacrifices were “a shadow… [that] can never… make perfect.”
  • Romans 3:21–22 — “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is manifested…”
Isaiah’s point and Paul’s differ in scope: Isaiah called Israel back to sincere obedience under the covenant; Paul proclaims a new covenant where righteousness is imputed through faith in Christ, not maintained by law-keeping.

5. Claim:

There are two laws — the moral law (permanent) and sacrificial law (temporary).

Response:
Scripture never divides Moses’ law that way; it treats it as one unified covenant.

Supporting texts:

  • Deuteronomy 4:13–14 — The Ten Commandments and statutes are both part of “the covenant.”
  • 2 Corinthians 3:7–11 — The law “engraved in stones” (Ten Commandments) is called “the ministry of death” that was “done away.”
  • Galatians 3:24–25 — “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ… but after faith has come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”
Therefore, all aspects of the Mosaic law — moral, ceremonial, civil — belonged to one covenant now fulfilled in Christ(Romans 10:4).

6. Claim:

The “works of the law” Paul condemns refer only to sacrificial rituals.

Response:
Paul uses “works of the law” to mean any attempt to earn righteousness through law-keeping, not just sacrifices.

Supporting texts:

  • Romans 3:20 — “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
  • Galatians 2:16 — “A man is not justified by the works of the law.”
    In Galatians, Paul rebukes circumcision (a moral-identity marker, not a sacrifice), proving “works of the law” include the whole system of observances.
Thus, the problem isn’t merely temple rituals — it’s trusting human obedience instead of Christ’s finished work.


7. Claim:

Faith replaces animal sacrifice, but believers must still obey the Ten Commandments to be justified.

Response:
Faith in Christ does not supplement the law — it supersedes it as the ground of justification.
Obedience is the fruit, not the basis, of salvation.

Supporting texts:

  • Ephesians 2:8–10 — “By grace are ye saved through faith… not of works… for we are His workmanship.”
  • Romans 8:3–4 — The law’s righteous requirement is fulfilled in us through the Spirit.
  • Hebrews 8:13 — “In that He saith, A new covenant… He hath made the first old.”
Believers are now under “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2), living by the Spirit who writes God’s moral will on the heart — not by trying to keep Sinai’s covenant code for justification.
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,876,438
Messages
65,382,929
Members
276,275
Latest member
Tosaprof