Review of "Paul and the Law" (1987) by Heikki Räisänen

[Teofrastus]

Heikki Räisänen (Paul and the Law, 1987) is critical of Paul and what he sees as the many self-contradictions and ambiguities in Paul’s position. Paul sets up the antithesis of faith and works and paradoxically claims that the law is overcome and yet remains valid. Räisänen says that Paul “is torn into two directions, and he is incapable of resolving the tension in terms of theological thought” (p. 264).

But this is the predicament of life! We are indeed torn into two directions. Luther’s theology of the cross builds on Paul’s radical dualism of law and Gospel, and he manages to make sense of Paul’s paradoxical theology. But Räisänen does not engage with Luther in this book.

Nor can the author make sense of Paul’s view that it is his own teaching that really ‘upholds’ the law. Arguably, it is rhetorical. Paul thinks that it is not good enough if one upholds 80% of the 613 Mosaic regulations (provided that law is defined simply as Torah). If we’re going to follow the law, 100% is required. But because “all are under sin”, nobody can manage this, and the only way out is to turn to the Gospel. Thus, Paul makes sense, after all. The demonic power of the law forces people into the fold of the Gospel. This is also how Luther sees it.

The author thinks that Paul gives his readers a distorted picture of Judaic religion, i.e., as anthropocentric legalism in which the law is an end in itself. Thus, he agrees with the modern critique of the legalistic picture of ancient Judaism. Indeed, according to Judaic theology this is completely wrong. But it is a different thing on the level of everyday life. We know how hypocritical people are, how they project themselves as righteous and upstanding citizens in order to secure a high status in society. It is part of original sin, and that’s why Paul associates the law with sin. He probably had good reasons to think that the law encourages hypocrisy, falsity and a tendency of being judgmental towards others. We must also analyze the effects of theology on human psychology.

Räisänen explains that, elsewhere in the NT, “faith comes in as a complement to obedience to the law, making good the lack of perfection as regards the latter” (p. 195). It would mean that there is no essential conflict between law and Gospel. The conclusion is that Paul is alone in early Christianity with his law/Gospel dualism. The author is probably right in this, and that’s why we are so lucky to have Paul’s letters. I’m impressed by the author’s scholarly knowledge but not by his understanding of Paul, which is shallow. I give the book three stars.

 

[Soyeong]

Heikki Räisänen (Paul and the Law, 1987) is critical of Paul and what he sees as the many self-contradictions and ambiguities in Paul’s position. Paul sets up the antithesis of faith and works and paradoxically claims that the law is overcome and yet remains valid. Räisänen says that Paul “is torn into two directions, and he is incapable of resolving the tension in terms of theological thought” (p. 264).

If we assume that Paul was always speaking about the Law of God, then it will appear that he was being torn in different directions by saying contradictory things so It is important to recognize that he spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such as the law of sin and works of the law. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted with Lae of the Spirit of Life with the law of sin and death. In Romans 7:22, Paul delighted in obeying the Law of God, so verses that refer to a law that would be absurd for Paul to delight in doing should not be interpreted as referring to the Law of God, such as Romans 7:5, which speaks about a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather that is the role of the law of sin.

In Acts 5:32, God has given the Spirit to those who obey Him, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:1-2 denies that works of the law are part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to the Law of God. In Romans 3:27-31, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works while he said that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-12. In accordance with Deuteronomy 27:9-28:68, relying on the Law of God is the way to be blessed while not relying on it is the way to be cursed, so Galatians 3:10 should not be interpreted as quoting this passage in order to make the point that relying on the Law of God is the way to be cursed. Rather, if all who rely on works of the law come under the curse for not relying on the Law of God, then they are relying on something other than the Law of God.

In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 saying that the righteous shall live by faith with a quote from Leviticus 18:5 saying that those who obey the Law of God will live by it, so the righteous who are living by faith re the same as those who are living in obedience to the Law of God, which is in accordance with Isaiah 51:7, where the righteous are those on whose heart is the Law of God. God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to rely on God is by relying on what He has instructed while to interpret these verses as saying that the Law of God is not of faith rather than works of the law is denying that we should rely on what God has instructed, which is also denying that we should rely on God.

But this is the predicament of life! We are indeed torn into two directions. Luther’s theology of the cross builds on Paul’s radical dualism of law and Gospel, and he manages to make sense of Paul’s paradoxical theology. But Räisänen does not engage with Luther in this book.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God, which is a light to the nations, and the Law of God was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14), and which he commissioned his disciples to spread to the nations (Matthew 28:16-20). In Romans 15:18-19, Paul's Gospel message involved bringing Gentiles to obedience in word and deed, so he did teach a radical dualism of law and Gospel, but rather his Gospel was on the same page as the one that Jesus taught. Furthermore, Romans 10:16, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, and 1 Peter 4:17 all speak against those who do not obey the Gospel.

Nor can the author make sense of Paul’s view that it is his own teaching that really ‘upholds’ the law. Arguably, it is rhetorical. Paul thinks that it is not good enough if one upholds 80% of the 613 Mosaic regulations (provided that law is defined simply as Torah). If we’re going to follow the law, 100% is required. But because “all are under sin”, nobody can manage this, and the only way out is to turn to the Gospel. Thus, Paul makes sense, after all. The demonic power of the law forces people into the fold of the Gospel. This is also how Luther sees it.

Indeed, it is questionable whether it is defined simply as Torah. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that the Law of God is not too difficult to obey and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it is not the case that no one can manage this, and indeed there are a number of people who are described as obeying God's law, such as in Joshua 22:1-3 and Luke 1:5-6. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 30:15-20 doesn't leave open the option of avoiding coming under a curse if we refusing to submit to God's law, but rather that is the way to come under its curse. Furthermore, Romans 10:5-8 references Deuteronomy 30 as the word of faith that we proclaim. Turning to the Gospel of Christ that calls for us to obey the Law of God is not an alternative to obeying the Law of God. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of God is also the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20). The Law of God is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), so it does not have demonic power.

The author thinks that Paul gives his readers a distorted picture of Judaic religion, i.e., as anthropocentric legalism in which the law is an end in itself. Thus, he agrees with the modern critique of the legalistic picture of ancient Judaism. Indeed, according to Judaic theology this is completely wrong. But it is a different thing on the level of everyday life. We know how hypocritical people are, how they project themselves as righteous and upstanding citizens in order to secure a high status in society. It is part of original sin, and that’s why Paul associates the law with sin. He probably had good reasons to think that the law encourages hypocrisy, falsity and a tendency of being judgmental towards others. We must also analyze the effects of theology on human psychology.

In Romans 7:7, Paul said that the Law of God is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to increase. However, the law that encourages hypocrisy and falsity is a law that is sinful, and therefore is not the Law of God. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faith are weightier matters of the Law of God.

Räisänen explains that, elsewhere in the NT, “faith comes in as a complement to obedience to the law, making good the lack of perfection as regards the latter” (p. 195). It would mean that there is no essential conflict between law and Gospel. The conclusion is that Paul is alone in early Christianity with his law/Gospel dualism. The author is probably right in this, and that’s why we are so lucky to have Paul’s letters. I’m impressed by the author’s scholarly knowledge but not by his understanding of Paul, which is shallow. I give the book three stars.

Indeed, there are many verses that connect our faith in God with our obedience to Him or that connect our unbelief with our disobedience to Him, such as Revelation 14:12, where those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments, so our faith does not make up for a lack of perfection in obedience to the Law of God, but rather our obedience to it is the way to express our faith. The Law of God came with instructions for what to do when His people sinned, so it did not require perfection, and righteousness is not something that can be earned as a wage even if someone managed to have perfect obedience (Romans 4:1-5), so that has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the law.

 

[BobRyan]

The demonic power of the law forces people into the fold of the Gospel.

The Bible does not support the phrase "the demonic power of the law" in the least.

"the saints KEEP the Commandments OF GOD and their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
'This IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:3
"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

Where "The first commandment with a promise is 'Honor your father and mother'" Eph 6:2

Paul's statement in Heb 8:6-12 is that it is CHRIST - speaking the TEN at Sinai - not demons.

The author thinks that Paul gives his readers a distorted picture of Judaic religion, i.e., as anthropocentric legalism in which the law is an end in itself. Thus, he agrees with the modern critique of the legalistic picture of ancient Judaism. Indeed, according to Judaic theology this is completely wrong.

But it is a different thing on the level of everyday life. We know how hypocritical people are, how they project themselves as righteous and upstanding citizens in order to secure a high status in society. It is part of original sin, and that’s why Paul associates the law with sin. He probably had good reasons to think that the law encourages hypocrisy, falsity and a tendency of being judgmental towards others.

Paul says in Romans 6 that we are not to sin - since we are under grace.

Paul says in Rom 8:4-9 that those filled with the Spirit comply with the Law and those whose minds are set of the flesh are "hostile towards God... they do not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they". Paul argues for a state of depravity for the lost that can only be rescued by the power of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel.

Räisänen explains that, elsewhere in the NT, “faith comes in as a complement to obedience to the law, making good the lack of perfection as regards the latter” (p. 195). It would mean that there is no essential conflict between law and Gospel. The conclusion is that Paul is alone in early Christianity with his law/Gospel dualism.

Then that author is failing to get the subtle definition-in-context for the term "under the Law" in places like Rom 3 where (in that context) it clearly means "under the condemnation of the Law" -- which is a reference to the lost condition of man.

 

[Teofrastus]

Thank you for your interesting replies.

...Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted with Law of the Spirit of Life with the law of sin and death.

In a traditional way of reading, the law of the Spirit is the gospel of Jesus and the law of sin and death is the Old Testament Law of God. According to Romans 3:19-20, God gave Israel the Mosaic Law for one purpose, namely to reveal sin and condemn. So the phrase "works of the law" does indeed relate to the Law of God. Paul says:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." (Romans 7:7)​

That's why he calls it the law of sin and death, not because it is sin but because it raises our awareness to sin. It explains why those who are under the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10).

...obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it is not the case that no one can manage this...

In Romans 3:20, Paul declares emphatically that no one will be justified by works of the law. Everybody is a transgressor, due to the fact that it is impossible to fulfil the law. This is evident from Galatians 5.3, where Paul stresses that one who is circumcised is obliged to fulfil the whole law, and this should be enough to discourage the Galatians from being circumcised and searching for justification in the law (v. 4). Romans 1:18-3:20 confirms the view that what Paul really means is that everybody is a transgressor (cf. Räisänen, p. 95).

...his Gospel was on the same page as the one that Jesus taught

Paul wrote, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Romans 10:4). This view is not evident in any other NT text other than the authentic Pauline texts. Rather, the general NT view is that faith makes up what is lacking in one's 'righteousness' so far. Alternatively one could say that faith absorbs the law. Räisänen says:

John seems to be trying to present faith as that which absorbs and surpasses the works of the Law, rather than as something radically distinct and even opposed to the "works of the Law". For Jn the Law should lead to Jesus, the "works of the Law" to faith in Jesus! What is attacked and condemned by Jn is a false understanding of the Law which would oppose the Law and Jesus, observance of the Law and faith in Jesus. (p. 195)​

So Paul really stands out. Nowhere in the NT do we find a parallel to Paul's radical association of the law with sin.

Turning to the Gospel of Christ that calls for us to obey the Law of God is not an alternative to obeying the Law of God.

Luther explains all about it. While the law continues to oppress us, we find solace in the Gospel, and the yoke of the law is cast off. But the process is repeated. Yet again we become aware of the law of sin. So there's a dialectic between law and Gospel. The Gospel is indeed the alternative to obeying the Law of God, and obeying the Law of God is the alternative to following the Gospel, even though it only pulls us deeper into sin. Neither of these two ways allows us to reach fulfilment, and neither can stand alone, because there's a complementary relation between them. After all, without becoming aware of sin we cannot find solace in the Gospel. The realization of sin and salvation tends to proceed in a circular pattern.

"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

You should have cited the whole sentence: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the precepts of God" (1 Corinthians 7:19). 1 Corinthians is regarded as partly spurious, which could explain this apparent self-contradiction. However, one could understand it in the following way. What Paul means is that we can only keep the commandments of God by following the law of the Spirit but not by obsessing with the letter. After all, "the letter kills but the spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).

The Bible does not support the phrase "the demonic power of the law" in the least.

In fact, Paul suggests that the law was given through angels (Acts 7:53, cf. 7:38), and these could be angels of darkness or of light. According to both Paul and Luther, the law has all the characteristics of a demonic power. I discuss it in my article An Assessment of the Theology of Carl Gustav Jung. Luther says that "if the Law is the minister of sin, it is at the same time the minister of wrath and death" (Luther, Commentary on Galatians, verse 17). God's wrath takes the appearance of devil, sin, unfaith, death, hell and law. These are "the tyrants", very similar to demonic powers. Luther sees the operation of the law as God's alien works (opus alienum) by which he saves the sinner by becoming to him a devil, aggravating his anxiety and guilt. So God takes the appearance as a demonic power, then.

 

[Soyeong]

Thank you for your interesting replies.

In a traditional way of reading, the law of the Spirit is the gospel of Jesus and the law of sin and death is the Old Testament Law of God. According to Romans 3:19-20, God gave Israel the Mosaic Law for one purpose, namely to reveal sin and condemn. So the phrase "works of the law" does indeed relate to the Law of God. Paul says:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." (Romans 7:7)​

That's why he calls it the law of sin and death, not because it is sin but because it raises our awareness to sin. It explains why those who are under the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10).

The Law of God reveals what sin is and the wages of sin is death, so I can see how it is easy to assume that it is what Paul is referring to by "the law of sin and death", however, that ignores the way that Paul used that phrase and how he contrasted it with the Law of God. In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that although he wanted to do good, evil was right there with him, for he delighted in the Law of God in his inner being, but contrasted with another law at work within him that was waging war against the law of his mind and making him captive to the law of sin at work within him, and that in his mind he serves the Law of God, but in his flesh he serves the law of sin, so the law of sin is at cross purposes to the Law of God, and these verse are summarizing what Paul had been discussing earlier in the chapter.

For example, in Romans 7:5-6, Paul spoke about a law that stirred up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death and about being freed from a law that held him captive, so if this were referring to the same law as Romans 7:22, then that would mean that he delighted in those things, which is absurd, but rather it was the law in Romans 7:23 that he described as holding him captive. In Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, however, the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so it is sinful and causes sin to increase, so Romans 7:7 can't be referring to the same law as 7:5. In Romans 7:8, it is the law of sin that seizes the opportunity through the Law of God to cause all kinds of covetousness, so again it is the law of sin that increases sin, not the Law of God. In Romans 7:9-13, Paul said that the Law of God is good and it is not that which is good that brought death to him, but rather the law of sin used what is good to bring death to him, so the law of sin hindered Paul from doing the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do. So if a verse refers to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God, then it should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin rather than the Law of God, such as Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, Galatians 2:19, Galatians 5:16-18, and 1 Corinthians 15:56.

In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul equated the Law of God with the Law of the Spirit by contrasting them both with the law of sin and death, so he was not contrasting the Law of the Spirit with the the Law of God, especially when the Spirit is God. In addition, in Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God. In Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Law of God while all of the fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature that are in accordance with it. In John 16:13, the Spirit has the role of leading us in truth, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Law of God, and in Psalms 119:142, the Law of God is truth. In John 16:8, the Spirit has the role of convicting us of sin, and in 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of the Law of God.

In Romans 3:19-20, it says that the Law of God was given to give us knowledge of sin, but it does not say that God gave it for just that one purpose, but rather it has many purposes, such as teaching us how to know God through doing what is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). The phrase "works of the law" does not have a definitive article in the Greek, so it is literally translated as "works of law", which means that it does not refer to a definitive set of laws, such as the Law of God, but rather Paul use it as a catch-all phrase to refer to a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences that were being taught that people needed to obey in order to become justified, which is also supported by how it is used in Qumran Text 4QMMT.

In Romans 3:20, Paul declares emphatically that no one will be justified by works of the law. Everybody is a transgressor, due to the fact that it is impossible to fulfil the law. This is evident from Galatians 5.3, where Paul stresses that one who is circumcised is obliged to fulfil the whole law, and this should be enough to discourage the Galatians from being circumcised and searching for justification in the law (v. 4). Romans 1:18-3:20 confirms the view that what Paul really means is that everybody is a transgressor (cf. Räisänen, p. 95).

The only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ (Romans 3:21-22), so even if someone managed to live in perfect obedience to Law of God, then they still would not earn their righteousness as the result of their obedience as if it were a wage (Romans 4:1-5), so the reason why no one is declared righteous as the result of obeying the Law of God is because that was never the goal of the law, not because it is impossible to fulfill. According to Galatians 5:14, everyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so countless people have done that.

To describe someone as having a character trait is to describe them as being someone who chooses to take actions that are in accordance with that trait, so to say that God is righteous is to say that He does what is righteous, which means that to become righteous through faith is to become someone who does what is righteous through the same faith. The Law of God was given to teach us how to do what is righteous, not given as a means of resulting in becoming righteous, so the same faith by which we are declared righteous is also expressed by doing what is righteous, which is why our faith does not abolish our need to obey the Law of God, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:31). Paul also said that only doers of the Law of God will be declared righteous (Romans 2:13), so there must be a reason why our righteousness requires us to choose to be doers of the law other than in order do earn it as a wage, such as faith.

Either there are correct or incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised and Paul only spoke against the incorrect reasons, or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:3), and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become justified, however, this was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of God by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect purpose, which should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

The Law of God came with instructions for what to do when people transgressed it, so even after people have done that, we can still choose by faith to continue to live in the way that leads to life and a blessing by repenting and returning to obedience to the Law of God.

Paul wrote, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Romans 10:4). This view is not evident in any other NT text other than the authentic Pauline texts. Rather, the general NT view is that faith makes up what is lacking in one's 'righteousness' so far. Alternatively one could say that faith absorbs the law. Räisänen says:

John seems to be trying to present faith as that which absorbs and surpasses the works of the Law, rather than as something radically distinct and even opposed to the "works of the Law". For Jn the Law should lead to Jesus, the "works of the Law" to faith in Jesus! What is attacked and condemned by Jn is a false understanding of the Law which would oppose the Law and Jesus, observance of the Law and faith in Jesus. (p. 195)​

So Paul really stands out. Nowhere in the NT do we find a parallel to Paul's radical association of the law with sin.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he might know Him and Israel too, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing God and Jesus is the goal of the Law of God, which is eternal life (John 17:3), which is in accordance with Jesus saying that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments (Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28).

In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowing Him, so they failed to attain righteousness because they were missing the whole goal of the law by pursuing it as though righteousness were the result of 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. In Romans 10:5-10, this faith references Deuteronomy 30 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to saying that the Law of God is not too difficult to obey, that obedience to it brings life, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God rose him from the dead, so nothing in this passage has anything to do with Jesus ending any laws, especially because all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160). Jesus is God's word made flesh, so God's word can't be ended without also ending Jesus.

Again, faith does not make up for a lack of obeying the Law of God, but rather it is by faith that we obey it. In other words, the God's word is His instructions for how to have faith in God's word made flesh, so the goal is for us to embody God's word through faith. John did not use the phrase "works of the law" in his writings, so I'm confused about what it is referring to in that quote.

Luther explains all about it. While the law continues to oppress us, we find solace in the Gospel, and the yoke of the law is cast off. But the process is repeated. Yet again we become aware of the law of sin. So there's a dialectic between law and Gospel. The Gospel is indeed the alternative to obeying the Law of God, and obeying the Law of God is the alternative to following the Gospel, even though it only pulls us deeper into sin. Neither of these two ways allows us to reach fulfilment, and neither can stand alone, because there's a complementary relation between them. After all, without becoming aware of sin we cannot find solace in the Gospel. The realization of sin and salvation tends to proceed in a circular pattern.

Again, the Gospel that Christ taught in Matthew 4:15-23 and the same Gospel that Paul taught in Romans 15:18-19 called for obedience to the Law of God, so I see no basis for Luther explaining that the Gospel is casting off the yoke of the Law of God or as being an alternative to it, though the Gospel is an alternative to the law of sin. It is the law of sin that pulls us deeper into sin while it is the Law of God that teaches us to repent from our sin and leads us to do what is holy, righteous, and good.

The Psalms express an extremely positive attitude towards the Law of God, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct attitude towards the Law of God, then we will share it as Paul did (Romans 7:22), moreover, the NT authors considered the Psalms to be Scripture so will interpret them as through they had the same attitude towards the Law of God as David and we will consider the attitude that the law oppresses us to be incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't believe in the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our attitude towards the Law of God. The Bible repeatedly states that the Law of God was given as a gift for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13).

In Psalms 119:29-30, David want to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of God, and he chose the way of faith by choosing to obey it, so this has always been the one and only way of becoming righteous by grace through faith. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so while we do not earn our salvation as the result of obeying it, living in obedience to God's word through faith is nevertheless intrinsically part of the concept of God's word made flesh saving us from not living in obedience to it. If you read something like Psalms 19:7-11, then David would not consider throwing off the yoke of the Law of God to be Good News, but rather it would be terrible news.

You should have cited the whole sentence: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the precepts of God" (1 Corinthians 7:19). 1 Corinthians is regarded as partly spurious, which could explain this apparent self-contradiction. However, one could understand it in the following way. What Paul means is that we can only keep the commandments of God by following the law of the Spirit but not by obsessing with the letter. After all, "the letter kills but the spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).

While Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is keeping the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Law of God (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no intrinsic value and that its value is entirely derived from whether we obey the Law of God. In Romans 2:26, the way to determine that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Law of God, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 30:6).

There are many verses where obedience to the Law of God leads to life, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Law of God, and the New Covenant involves following the Law of God, so 2 Corinthians 3:6 needs to be interpreted in a way that is in accordance with those verses rather than a way that is contrary to them. If following the letter of the law brings death instead of life, then there is something about following the letter of the law that is not correctly doing what God's word says leads to life. Furthermore, if correctly following what God has instructed leads to death instead of life, then that would mean that God is misleading us and should not be trusted to correctly guide us, but that is not the case.

In fact, Paul suggests that the law was given through angels (Acts 7:53, cf. 7:38), and these could be angels of darkness or of light. According to both Paul and Luther, the law has all the characteristics of a demonic power. I discuss it in my article An Assessment of the Theology of Carl Gustav Jung. Luther says that "if the Law is the minister of sin, it is at the same time the minister of wrath and death" (Luther, Commentary on Galatians, verse 17). God's wrath takes the appearance of devil, sin, unfaith, death, hell and law. These are "the tyrants", very similar to demonic powers. Luther sees the operation of the law as God's alien works (opus alienum) by which he saves the sinner by becoming to him a devil, aggravating his anxiety and guilt. So God takes the appearance as a demonic power, then.

Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy to defeat the temptations of Satan, so he was affirming its authority and it is not demonic power, but rather it resists demonic power. According to Deuteronomy 30:11-20, the Law of God is not too difficult to obey and it is a ministry of life for those who choose to obey it while it is a ministry of death for those who do not.

 

[Teofrastus]

I will discuss some of your objections.

According to Galatians 5:14, everyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so countless people have done that.

No, that's not what Paul is saying. He says that "the whole law can be summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Galatians 5:14). Carter Lindberg (Love: A Brief History Through Western Christianity) explains that 'love' in the bible signifies a communal ethos, understood as mutual solidarity within the community (p. 25). It means to take care of your neighbour as you take care of yourself. (The ancients had not the modern subjective view of 'love'.) We ought to take responsibility for the people close to us. However, Augustine explains that it is sinful to help strangers before our own people. So the love commandment is not such a big deal, actually. Despite this, most Western people are unable to live up to it. In fact, many have reversed the love commandment: they help the stranger but not the neighbour.

We shall be responsible citizens in our community, respectful and helpful to all. This is good enough, because Jesus takes care of the rest. We cannot redeem ourselves. In fact, when living in faith, we are doing the law indirectly, because we put it on the shoulders of Jesus Christ to do the redemptive work. Salvation has been outsourced to the Christ. As long as we think that we can climb a ladder to God by following God's law, we are in denial of Christ as redeemer. Why is this so hard to understand, that Jesus's ascension means the redemption for us all, similar to how Adam's fall means the damnation for us all?

Paul also said that only doers of the Law of God will be declared righteous (Romans 2:13), so there must be a reason why our righteousness requires us to choose to be doers of the law other than in order do earn it as a wage, such as faith.

Certain of Paul's Jewish followers thought that by simply being Jewish, they would be declared righteous by God. But Paul explains that they, too, must be doers of the law, which is simply to be respectful and helpful to people in the congregation and the local community, regardless of ethnic belonging and societal status. Behave correctly towards the bum, too! This is really a simple demand, yet seems impossible for most people.

In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that although he wanted to do good, evil was right there with him, for he delighted in the Law of God in his inner being, but contrasted with another law at work within him that was waging war against the law of his mind and making him captive to the law of sin at work within him...

You dichotomize the 'law of sin and death' and the 'law of God' in a way which smacks of Gnosticism or Manichaeism. Remember the Christian teaching. According to Christian theology and the principle of privatio boni, sin and evil have no impetus of their own. Evil lacks essential being. Instead it acquires its being from good, because it is parasitic on good. Thus, despite the fact that the law of God is good, it only makes the human subject sink deeper into sin, and it makes him obsess about being righteous like the worst kind of hypocritical Pharisee. To think that you are righteous or capable of being righteous is the worst sin, because you are making yourself the equal of Jesus Christ.

It is because Paul wants to do good according to the law of God that he sinks deeper into sin: "When I want to do good, evil is right there with me" (Romans 7:21). He explains this mechanism himself: "To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law" (Romans 5:13). Thus, as Luther explains, we are always simul justus et peccator, at the same time holy and profane, saved and damned.

 

[Soyeong]

I will discuss some of your objections.

No, that's not what Paul is saying. He says that "the whole law can be summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Galatians 5:14). Carter Lindberg (Love: A Brief History Through Western Christianity) explains that 'love' in the bible signifies a communal ethos, understood as mutual solidarity within the community (p. 25). It means to take care of your neighbour as you take care of yourself. (The ancients had not the modern subjective view of 'love'.) We ought to take responsibility for the people close to us. However, Augustine explains that it is sinful to help strangers before our own people. So the love commandment is not such a big deal, actually. Despite this, most Western people are unable to live up to it. In fact, many have reversed the love commandment: they help the stranger but not the neighbour.

Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Your response spoke in regard to the correct way to keep that command, with which I agree, but it did not detract from the fact that everyone who keeps that command is fulfilling the entire law.

We shall be responsible citizens in our community, respectful and helpful to all. This is good enough, because Jesus takes care of the rest. We cannot redeem ourselves. In fact, when living in faith, we are doing the law indirectly, because we put it on the shoulders of Jesus Christ to do the redemptive work. Salvation has been outsourced to the Christ. As long as we think that we can climb a ladder to God by following God's law, we are in denial of Christ as redeemer. Why is this so hard to understand, that Jesus's ascension means the redemption for us all, similar to how Adam's fall means the damnation for us all?

In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly so God graciously teaching us to do these works in obedience to His law is itself the content of His gift of salvation, which certainly involves our participation. Furthermore, in Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of God is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20), while it it would be absurd to think that by becoming zealous for doing good works we are trying to redeem ourselves or are in denial of Christ as redeemer instead of believing in what he gave himself to accomplish.

The content of a gift can itself be the experience of doing something, such as giving someone the opportunity to experience driving a Ferrari for an hour, where the fact that the content of the gift requires them to do the work of driving it does not detract from the fact that the opportunity to experience driving it was completely given to them as a gift. In a similar manner, the content of God's gift of eternal life is the experience of knowing Him and Jesus and the gift of the Law of God is His instructions for how to have that experience (Exodus 33:13, Matthew 7:23, John 17:3).

God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to rely on God is by obediently relying on what He has instructed while it would be contradictory for someone to think that we should rely on God, but should not rely on what He has instructed. God's law is God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so obediently relying on God's word is way to rely on God's word made flesh as our redeemer, and it is contradictory to want to rely on God's word made flesh instead of relying on God's word. It is also contradictory for someone to rely on themselves by obediently relying on God's instructions.

Certain of Paul's Jewish followers thought that by simply being Jewish, they would be declared righteous by God. But Paul explains that they, too, must be doers of the law, which is simply to be respectful and helpful to people in the congregation and the local community, regardless of ethnic belonging and societal status. Behave correctly towards the bum, too! This is really a simple demand, yet seems impossible to most people.

Loving our neighbor as ourselves fulfills the entire law because everything in it is an example of how to correctly do that. For example, if we are responsible citizens in our community who are respectful and helpful to all, then we won't commit adultery, idolatry, theft, murder, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, and so forth in accordance with everything else that God has commanded, so they are all connected, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40 that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them. It would be contradictory for someone to think that they just need to be responsible citizens in our community who is respectful and helpful to all, but don't need to follow God's other laws for how to do that. In Matthew 24:12, Jesus said that because of lawlessness the love of many will grow cold, so it doesn't work that way. Jesus did not obey the Law of God so that we don't have to, but so that we would have an example to follow, which we are told to follow (1 Peter 2:21-22)

You dichotomize the 'law of sin and death' and the 'law of God' in a way which smacks of Gnosticism or Manichaeism. Remember the Christian teaching. According to Christian theology and the principle of privatio boni, sin and evil have no impetus of their own. Evil lacks essential being. Instead it acquires its being from good, because it is parasitic on good. Thus, despite the fact that the law of God is good, it only makes the human subject sink deeper into sin, and it makes him obsess about being righteous like the worst kind of hypocritical Pharisee. To think that you are righteous or capable of being righteous is the worst sin, because you are making yourself the equal of Jesus Christ.

It is because Paul wants to do good according to the law of God that he sinks deeper into sin: "When I want to do good, evil is right there with me" (Romans 7:21). He explains this mechanism himself: "To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law" (Romans 5:13). Thus, as Luther explains, we are always simul justus et peccator, at the same time holy and profane, saved and damned.

It's not clear to me why you think that what I said smacks of Gnosticism or Manichaeism and there is still the issue that Romans 7:25 directly contrasts the Law of God with the law of sin. We have an evil inclination (yetzer hara) and a good inclination (yetzer tov), and the law of sin is the evil inclination, which is in accordance with Judaism and Christianity. Sin is just the transgression of God's law, so it has no power to cause us to sin, but rather it is the law of sin that is something within us that cause us to sin when it react to the Law of God. If we are commanded to do something good there is something within us that causes us to do the opposite, then the problem is not with the command to do good, but with the thing that is within us reacting to the command to do good, so we need to be set free from being captive to that thing within us in order to be free to obey the command to do good (Romans 8:1-4). In Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that the Law of God is good and that it is not that which is good that brought death to him, but if the Law of God makes us sink deeper into sin, then it would be that which is good that brought death to him. Likewise, a law that makes us sink deeper into sin is a law that is sinful, but Romana 7:7 says that the Law of God is not sinful.

The Bible describes many people as being righteous, so it not a in to think that we are righteous or capable of being righteous, and it does not make ourselves the equal of Christ, but rather the sin is doing what is unrighteous. Sin is what is contrary to God's nature, so sin was in the world before the law was given because people could act in a way that is contrary to God's nature before they had been instructed not to do that, but their sin is not counted against them because it was before they had been instructed not to do that.

 

[Teofrastus]

[...] For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Your response spoke in regard to the correct way to keep that command, with which I agree, but it did not detract from the fact that everyone who keeps that command is fulfilling the entire law.

In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly so God graciously teaching us to do these works in obedience to His law is itself the content of His gift of salvation, which certainly involves our participation.

The problem is that we cannot know in advance what is godly and ungodly, righteous and unrighteous, because we can no longer rely on the Torah. It belongs to the first revelation, which is outdated. Today, we can only achieve this by acquiring the mind of Christ, by renouncing the egoic homo incurvatus in se, sinful man as curved in upon himself (Augustine and Luther). But, because we live in a fallen world, a Christian must remain simultaneously righteous and a sinner and can only hope to be close to Christ, not like him. We get guidance by the Holy Spirit, but only if we live in faith with a lack of pretension. That's why Jesus and Paul give us barely any rules to follow, other than being a decent citizen. In Galatians, Paul is outraged when Peter refuses to dine with the non-Jewish Christians. It goes against the only rule that Christians are expected to follow, namely being respectful to all. To this day, few Christians succeed in following this rule. Maybe you're right, maybe the few Christians who succeed in being humble have fulfilled the law and are blessed for eternity.

Anyway, the path to salvation is no longer to follow outward rules. Rather, it is a process of maturation in which we become excurvatus ex se, no longer curved in upon ourselves. To this end, the law of God becomes our torturer; but this is so only because we remain curved in upon ourselves. The first thing for a Christian to realize, is that we do not really know what is the law of God. We do not know in every situation what it means to be good. Only God knows, and that's why we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[...] The Bible describes many people as being righteous, so it not a sin to think that we are righteous or capable of being righteous, and it does not make ourselves the equal of Christ, but rather the sin is doing what is unrighteous.

[...] In Matthew 24:12, Jesus said that because of lawlessness the love of many will grow cold, so it doesn't work that way. Jesus did not obey the Law of God so that we don't have to, but so that we would have an example to follow, which we are told to follow (1 Peter 2:21-22).

Yes, but like I said, the NT does not follow Pauline theology, and especially not Matthew, which is a Judaizing document. I represent Pauline theology whereas you represent a theology inclined towards Judaism, which is perhaps the majority standpoint today. Matthew is a wonderful gospel, but theologically wrong.

We have an evil inclination (yetzer hara) and a good inclination (yetzer tov), and the law of sin is the evil inclination, which is in accordance with Judaism and Christianity. Sin is just the transgression of God's law, so it has no power to cause us to sin, but rather it is the law of sin that is something within us that cause us to sin when it react to the Law of God. [...]

In truth, our evil inclination is empowered by good, because evil is nihil. Luther explains in De Servo that God animates all in all, also in the ungodly man, who equally receives the divine light but then turns it into evil. It's like a carpenter cutting badly with a chipped and jagged axe. The ungodly man is lacking in wholeness; his axe is unsharp and little pieces are missing from its edge. This is the cause of evil will, enpowered by the good. Compare with the sun. The sun is good; but if the land cannot receive its rays and spawn vegetation, the earth is scorched and soon turns into desert.

Stark light creates dark shadows. The brighter the shine the darker the human evil. More wealth leads to more corruption. The richer the society the more powerful the mafia. It is due to original sin, equal to human imperfection, equal to lack of wholeness. A deficit in our soul is what engenders evil will. According to the doctrine of original sin we are born imperfect, like jagged axes. We all cut badly, although some worse and some better.

So there are no independent dual powers, as in Manichaeism. There is only the power of good that feeds an evil hupostasis, parasitic on the good (Proclus). It means that any human person who manifests exalted goodness has also an infernal shadow, and the brighter he shines the darker becomes his shadow. That's why we must beware of do-gooders.

Sin is the shadow of God's law, just like Paul says. God's law causes both growth and deterioration, similar to the sun. But nobody would deny that the sun is good. There is no pre-defined evil inclination and no pre-defined good inclination, because we do not have recourse to a divine law which defines good and evil. We just cut with our jagged axes and think that we're doing good, even though we're doing evil. Stalin thought that he was doing good by executing dissidents, because it would lead to the Communist paradise. Hitler though that he was doing good by murdering Jews and thereby exterminating the corrupting power of evil from the glorious Aryan empire. The Muslims continue to murder infidels for the good cause of the Caliphate. They are all do-gooders.

 

[Soyeong]

The problem is that we cannot know in advance what is godly and ungodly, righteous and unrighteous, because we can no longer rely on the Torah. It belongs to the first revelation, which is outdated. Today, we can only achieve this by acquiring the mind of Christ, by renouncing the egoic homo incurvatus in se, sinful man as curved in upon himself (Augustine and Luther). But, because we live in a fallen world, a Christian must remain simultaneously righteous and a sinner and can only hope to be close to Christ, not like him. We get guidance by the Holy Spirit, but only if we live in faith with a lack of pretension. That's why Jesus and Paul give us barely any rules to follow, other than being a decent citizen. In Galatians, Paul is outraged when Peter refuses to dine with the non-Jewish Christians. It goes against the only rule that Christians are expected to follow, namely being respectful to all. To this day, few Christians succeed in following this rule. Maybe you're right, maybe the few Christians who succeed in being humble have fulfilled the law and are blessed for eternity.

God's righteousness and all of His righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:142, 160), so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness are eternal valid regardless of which covenant someone is under. Likewise, sin was in the world before the Torah was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the Torah revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. For example, it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9, long before the Mosaic Covenant, during it, it remains sinful after it has become obsolete, and this will never become outdated. The only way that instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness could become outdated would be if God's righteousness were to first become outdated, but again it is eternal.

To say that we can no longer rely on what God has instructed is to say that we can no longer rely on God. The Torah is the mind of Christ and he spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey it by word and by example, so Galatians should not be interpreted as Paul being opposed to teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ. Likewise, in the New Covenant, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Torah (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).

In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus was not asked about which was the only rule that we should follow, but about which is the greatest commandment. A number of God's laws appear to conflict with each other, such as when God commanded priests to rest on the Sabbath, but also commanded priests to make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it was not the case that they were forced to sin by transgressing one of the two laws no matter what they chose to do, but that the lesser command was never intended intended to be understood as preventing the greater commandment from being obeying, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why Jesus defended his disciples as being innocent. So this is why there is discussion within Judaism about which commandment is the greatest, and the reason why the command to love God and our neighbor are the greatest is because they are inclusive of all of the other commands, so if you think that we should obey them, then you should also think that we should obey the other commandments. The existence of the greatest two commandments implies that other commandments that are not the greatest two still exist.

Anyway, the path to salvation is no longer to follow outward rules. Rather, it is a process of maturation in which we become excurvatus ex se, no longer curved in upon ourselves. To this end, the law of God becomes our torturer; but this is so only because we remain curved in upon ourselves.

In Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by obeying it, so this has always been the one and only path to salvation by grace through faith. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His ways that he might know Him and Israel too, and eternal life is knowing God's and Jesus (John 17:3), so this is again salvation by grace through faith. In Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God, he was a righteous man, and he walked with God, so God was gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way in obedience to His law and he was righteous because he obeyed through faith, so he was saved by grace through faith by the same one and only means as Abraham (Genesis 15:6), the rest of the people listed in Hebrews 11, and everyone else. Again, our salvation is from sin and sin is the the transgression of God's law, so choosing to obey God's law is intrinsically part of the concept of salvation from sin even though our salvation is not earned as the result of obeying God's law.

I use the Psalms to test whether someone has a correct view of the Law of God, so I can cite many verses where David said that he loved God's law and delighted in obeying it, but I see no verses where he said that the law is our torturer, which means that your view of the Law of God is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.

The first thing for a Christian to realize, is that we do not really know what is the law of God. We do not know in every situation what it means to be good. Only God knows, and that's why we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I agree that there are more ways to do good than are specifically instructed in the Law of God, however, it is spiritual (Romans 7:14) in that it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principle of which the listed laws are just examples, and which are aspects of God's nature/fruits of the Spirit. For instance, but looking at all of the ways to do good that are listed in the Law of God, we can discern a spiritual principle of goodness that leads us to do good in accordance with what the Law of God instructs even in situations that are not specifically instructed by it. If someone thought that they understood the spiritual principle of love, so that they no longer needed to follow God's command to help the poor, then they would be missing the whole point, so correctly understanding the spiritual principles that God's law is intended to teach us will never lead us away from actions that are examples of those principles in accordance with what the Law of God instructs. The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Law of God because all of fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature that the Law of God is intended to teach us how to express.

Yes, but like I said, the NT does not follow Pauline theology, and especially not Matthew, which is a Judaizing document. I represent Pauline theology whereas you represent a theology inclined towards Judaism, which is perhaps the majority standpoint today. Matthew is a wonderful gospel, but theologically wrong.

The problem with the Judaizers was that they were wanting Gentiles to become Jews by being circumcised in order to become saved. I think that this is probably based on a misunderstanding of Isaiah 45:17, where is says that all Israel will be saved, which led some to think that people just need to go through the conversion process of becoming a Jew in order to become saved. However, this position was opposed by Paul and is not supported by either Matthew or myself.

Jesus did not come to start his own religion, but rather he came as the Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and he spent his ministry teaching his followers how to correctly practice Judaism in obedience to the Torah, so Gentiles do not need to become Jews in order to follow him, but Gentiles can't follow him by refusing to follow what he taught. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith in Messiah who were all zealous doing good works in obedience to the Torah, which is in accordance with believing in what Jesus gave himself to accomplish through the cross in Titus 2:14, so Jews coming to faith in Messiah were not ceasing to follow the Torah that he taught, but were becoming zealous for it. This means that there was a period of time between the resurrection of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews, which means that Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as its prophesied Messiah, and this is the form of Christianity that I seek by faith to practice in accordance with Pauline theology.

About 1/3 of the verses in the NT quote or allude to the OT and the NT authors did this thousands of times in order to show that it supported what they were saying and to show that they hadn't departed from its, so they certainly considered the OT to still be authoritative. In particular, Jesus was constantly making references to the OT almost every time he opened his mouth to teach, such as if he spoke about bride grooms, then we should be looking at what the OT says about bride grooms to get a better understanding of the context, the same if he talks about different types of soils, and so forth. If Jesus was on his way to teach to a Gentile area and he fell asleep on a boat during a storm, then we should be looking at what that parallels in the OT, so everything taught in the NT is deeply rooted in the OT.

In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so accordance to this precedent, disagreement with the OT is the standard by which what is written in the NT should be rejected, so if we accept the truth of what Paul said, then we should not interpret him as saying things that they would have rejected. For example, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Torah. So I used to have a negative view towards the Torah, but I experimented with interpreting the authors of the NT as if they considered the OT to still be authoritative and as if they had the same view of the Torah that is expressed in the Psalms, which I don't think is a stretch considering how much they quoted from or alluded to the OT, and I found that the NT made much more sense and had much more continuity than I had given it credit for.

In truth, our evil inclination is empowered by good, because evil is nihil. Luther explains in De Servo that God animates all in all, also in the ungodly man, who equally receives the divine light but then turns it into evil. It's like a carpenter cutting badly with a chipped and jagged axe. The ungodly man is lacking in wholeness; his axe is unsharp and little pieces are missing from its edge. This is the cause of evil will, enpowered by the good. Compare with the sun. The sun is good; but if the land cannot receive its rays and spawn vegetation, the earth is scorched and soon turns into desert.

Stark light creates dark shadows. The brighter the shine the darker the human evil. More wealth leads to more corruption. The richer the society the more powerful the mafia. It is due to original sin, equal to human imperfection, equal to lack of wholeness. A deficit in our soul is what engenders evil will. According to the doctrine of original sin we are born imperfect, like jagged axes. We all cut badly, although some worse and some better.

So there are no independent dual powers, as in Manichaeism. There is only the power of good that feeds an evil hupostasis, parasitic on the good (Proclus). It means that any human person who manifests exalted goodness has also an infernal shadow, and the brighter he shines the darker becomes his shadow. That's why we must beware of do-gooders.

Sin is the shadow of God's law, just like Paul says. God's law causes both growth and deterioration, similar to the sun. But nobody would deny that the sun is good. There is no pre-defined evil inclination and no pre-defined good inclination, because we do not have recourse to a divine law which defines good and evil. We just cut with our jagged axes and think that we're doing good, even though we're doing evil. Stalin thought that he was doing good by executing dissidents, because it would lead to the Communist paradise. Hitler though that he was doing good by murdering Jews and thereby exterminating the corrupting power of evil from the glorious Aryan empire. The Muslims continue to murder infidels for the good cause of the Caliphate. They are all do-gooders.

Bereishit Rabbah 9:7
(7) Rabbi Nahman said in Rabbi Samuel's name: 'Behold, it was good' refers to the Good Desire; 'And behold, it was very good' refers to the Evil Desire. (It only says 'very good' after man was created with both the good and bad inclinations, in all other cases it only says 'and God saw that it was good') Can then the Evil Desire be very good? That would be extraordinary! But without the Evil Desire, however, no man would build a house, take a wife and beget children; and thus said Solomon: 'Again, I considered all labour and all excelling in work, that it is a man's rivalry with his neighbour.' (Ecclesiastes 4:4).
--

There is still the issue that Romans 7:25 directly contrasts the law of sin and describes it as causing him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do. We do not destroy our evil inclination because that would destroy the world with no procreation. The ability to procreate is good, but it can also be used for evil. Eating food is good, but gluttony is not. Same with the sun. The issue is that we need to be set free from our captivity to our evil inclination, overcome it, and have mastery over it. Our judgement is not not always correct because it is clouded by our desire, so we have the choice between leaning on our own understanding of good and evil or we can trust in God with all of our heart to correctly divide between good and evil through the Torah and He will make our paths straight (Proverbs 3:1-6).

 

[The Liturgist]

Posted in the wrong thread, sorry.

 

[BobRyan]

As for the assertion made by @BobRyan that the influence of anti-Catholicism on doctrine is not logical

I responded to your argument that instead of just looking at the text and letting the exegesis of it determine the correct understanding of it - what protestants do is look first at the Catholic church doctrine and try to find a way to make the text contradict it -- is not logical. I don't know how you even come up with that.

, while I would agree that allowing such a bias to influence doctrine is illogical, it is a fact that it has occurred, and the spectre of it looms large over this thread.

You spin a story about it in several posts - but provide no evidence that this is some blessed/sanctioned process used by anyone at all.

What would be objectionable about the doctrine of the Real Presence were it not for the RC embrace of transubstantiation?

When you say "the doctrine of the real presence" how do you define it -- something you are thinking in your head or something people are supposed to read from the Catholic Church. Is your question then "WHEN people go to the Catholic church and read their doctrine - do they find something they object to?" -- is that the topic you are on?

If that is your "subject" that I would agree if that is the project they are on - "go look at Catholic doctrine" then non-Catholics do find something here or there to object to.

But that is totally not what you posted. you claimed that when non-Catholics go to their Bibles to see what the text says - they first go find out what Catholics say of the text and then try to adopt a meaning of the text that would oppose whatever the Catholic church said.

That may be a "good story" as they say but it lacks facts.

Scripturally, if we look at all texts of Eucharistic relevance, there is more support for that doctrine than Memorialism,

Well no text says "you confect the body blood soul and divinity of Christ" in the bread, you and I might actually agree on that.
But we DO have an actual text that says "Do this in REMEMBRANCE of ME"

1 Cor 11:
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Remembrance - a memorial

Same word as in Heb 10: 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.



Interesting that you claim there is more Bible support for what you do not have in the Bible than for the texts we actually have.

 

[Teofrastus]

God's righteousness and all of His righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:142, 160), so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness are eternal valid regardless of which covenant someone is under. Likewise, sin was in the world before the Torah was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the Torah revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. For example, it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9, long before the Mosaic Covenant, during it, it remains sinful after it has become obsolete, and this will never become outdated. The only way that instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness could become outdated would be if God's righteousness were to first become outdated, but again it is eternal.

To say that we can no longer rely on what God has instructed is to say that we can no longer rely on God. The Torah is the mind of Christ and he spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey it by word and by example, so Galatians should not be interpreted as Paul being opposed to teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ. Likewise, in the New Covenant, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Torah (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).

In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus was not asked about which was the only rule that we should follow, but about which is the greatest commandment. A number of God's laws appear to conflict with each other, such as when God commanded priests to rest on the Sabbath, but also commanded priests to make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it was not the case that they were forced to sin by transgressing one of the two laws no matter what they chose to do, but that the lesser command was never intended intended to be understood as preventing the greater commandment from being obeying, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why Jesus defended his disciples as being innocent. So this is why there is discussion within Judaism about which commandment is the greatest, and the reason why the command to love God and our neighbor are the greatest is because they are inclusive of all of the other commands, so if you think that we should obey them, then you should also think that we should obey the other commandments. The existence of the greatest two commandments implies that other commandments that are not the greatest two still exist.


In Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by obeying it, so this has always been the one and only path to salvation by grace through faith. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His ways that he might know Him and Israel too, and eternal life is knowing God's and Jesus (John 17:3), so this is again salvation by grace through faith. In Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God, he was a righteous man, and he walked with God, so God was gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way in obedience to His law and he was righteous because he obeyed through faith, so he was saved by grace through faith by the same one and only means as Abraham (Genesis 15:6), the rest of the people listed in Hebrews 11, and everyone else. Again, our salvation is from sin and sin is the the transgression of God's law, so choosing to obey God's law is intrinsically part of the concept of salvation from sin even though our salvation is not earned as the result of obeying God's law.

I use the Psalms to test whether someone has a correct view of the Law of God, so I can cite many verses where David said that he loved God's law and delighted in obeying it, but I see no verses where he said that the law is our torturer, which means that your view of the Law of God is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.

I agree that there are more ways to do good than are specifically instructed in the Law of God, however, it is spiritual (Romans 7:14) in that it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principle of which the listed laws are just examples, and which are aspects of God's nature/fruits of the Spirit. For instance, but looking at all of the ways to do good that are listed in the Law of God, we can discern a spiritual principle of goodness that leads us to do good in accordance with what the Law of God instructs even in situations that are not specifically instructed by it. If someone thought that they understood the spiritual principle of love, so that they no longer needed to follow God's command to help the poor, then they would be missing the whole point, so correctly understanding the spiritual principles that God's law is intended to teach us will never lead us away from actions that are examples of those principles in accordance with what the Law of God instructs. The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Law of God because all of fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature that the Law of God is intended to teach us how to express.


The problem with the Judaizers was that they were wanting Gentiles to become Jews by being circumcised in order to become saved. I think that this is probably based on a misunderstanding of Isaiah 45:17, where is says that all Israel will be saved, which led some to think that people just need to go through the conversion process of becoming a Jew in order to become saved. However, this position was opposed by Paul and is not supported by either Matthew or myself.

Jesus did not come to start his own religion, but rather he came as the Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and he spent his ministry teaching his followers how to correctly practice Judaism in obedience to the Torah, so Gentiles do not need to become Jews in order to follow him, but Gentiles can't follow him by refusing to follow what he taught. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith in Messiah who were all zealous doing good works in obedience to the Torah, which is in accordance with believing in what Jesus gave himself to accomplish through the cross in Titus 2:14, so Jews coming to faith in Messiah were not ceasing to follow the Torah that he taught, but were becoming zealous for it. This means that there was a period of time between the resurrection of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews, which means that Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as its prophesied Messiah, and this is the form of Christianity that I seek by faith to practice in accordance with Pauline theology.

About 1/3 of the verses in the NT quote or allude to the OT and the NT authors did this thousands of times in order to show that it supported what they were saying and to show that they hadn't departed from its, so they certainly considered the OT to still be authoritative. In particular, Jesus was constantly making references to the OT almost every time he opened his mouth to teach, such as if he spoke about bride grooms, then we should be looking at what the OT says about bride grooms to get a better understanding of the context, the same if he talks about different types of soils, and so forth. If Jesus was on his way to teach to a Gentile area and he fell asleep on a boat during a storm, then we should be looking at what that parallels in the OT, so everything taught in the NT is deeply rooted in the OT.

In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so accordance to this precedent, disagreement with the OT is the standard by which what is written in the NT should be rejected, so if we accept the truth of what Paul said, then we should not interpret him as saying things that they would have rejected. For example, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Torah. So I used to have a negative view towards the Torah, but I experimented with interpreting the authors of the NT as if they considered the OT to still be authoritative and as if they had the same view of the Torah that is expressed in the Psalms, which I don't think is a stretch considering how much they quoted from or alluded to the OT, and I found that the NT made much more sense and had much more continuity than I had given it credit for.


Bereishit Rabbah 9:7
(7) Rabbi Nahman said in Rabbi Samuel's name: 'Behold, it was good' refers to the Good Desire; 'And behold, it was very good' refers to the Evil Desire. (It only says 'very good' after man was created with both the good and bad inclinations, in all other cases it only says 'and God saw that it was good') Can then the Evil Desire be very good? That would be extraordinary! But without the Evil Desire, however, no man would build a house, take a wife and beget children; and thus said Solomon: 'Again, I considered all labour and all excelling in work, that it is a man's rivalry with his neighbour.' (Ecclesiastes 4:4).
--

There is still the issue that Romans 7:25 directly contrasts the law of sin and describes it as causing him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do. We do not destroy our evil inclination because that would destroy the world with no procreation. The ability to procreate is good, but it can also be used for evil. Eating food is good, but gluttony is not. Same with the sun. The issue is that we need to be set free from our captivity to our evil inclination, overcome it, and have mastery over it. Our judgement is not not always correct because it is clouded by our desire, so we have the choice between leaning on our own understanding of good and evil or we can trust in God with all of our heart to correctly divide between good and evil through the Torah and He will make our paths straight (Proverbs 3:1-6).

Concerning adultery. What if a married man, who is sterile, allows her wife to have extramarital sex in order to have a child? What if an old man, who is impotent, allows his young wife to have extramarital sex in order to save their marriage? Life presents us with moral problems. Which is more important: the prohibition against adultery or the sanctity of marriage?; the prohibition against adultery or the command to "be fruitful and multiply"?

The true law is the will of God, which we cannot know for certain. However, we must uphold the law in its modern guise, or else civilization will collapse. We should honour our father and mother, and we ought to stand up for our nation and people. (But what about a person who lives in a Communist country, whose parents are staunch Communists?) We must also honour marriage and reject libertinism.

However, Paul explains that Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires (Romans 2:14). So we must look upon the law as written on our hearts. What is required is that we listen to our heart. That's why the Mosaic law is obsolete. We aren't required to follow it blindly, because there are always exceptions. Already Jesus explains this (Mark 2:23-28).

How come the heathen have the law written on their hearts? Today we know that morality has evolved through "social selection". The social preferences of group members and of groups as a whole were having systematic effects on gene pools. A group's ability to flourish through cooperation is lessened by socially disruptive wrongdoers, and that's why the latter were severely punished. As a consequence, wrongdoers contributed to a lesser extent to the gene pool. This explains why we are endowed with a conscience (vid. Boehm, Moral origins: the evolution of virtue, altruism, and shame, 2012).

The ancient Israelites thought wrongly that the heathens had no concept of the law, and thus they were seen as licentious libertines and evil wrongdoers. In fact, just as the Israelites, they had the institution of marriage, honoured their father and mother, prohibited anti-social behaviour, and were required to stand up for their people. So why did they hang the king of Ai on a tree and exterminate his entire people? (Joshua 8:23-29). What wrong had he done? He was an honorable king who defended his people.

The answer is the dark side of the law. The Israelites worshiped the letter but the king of Ai listened to his heart. The letter kills but the spirit gives life. The king of Ai was a harbinger of Christ, then! If we think that the law, a product of evolution, is a law given by God and holds absolute, then it will enpower evil. Sinful creatures as we are, we start chopping with our jagged axes and create devastation. All people who abide by law or rules as perfect givens become evil. This is true whether it's biblical law, quranic law, or ideological law, as in Communism or Fascism. The consequence is always mass-murder.

Only the Gospel can save us from the horrors of the law, whichever shape it takes. I do not oppose the Mosaic law; I'm just saying that it isn't absolute. It's good for young people to learn the Ten Commandments, because it reminds them of what is written on their heart. That's why Lutheran parsons still preach the Ten Commandments, despite the fact that biblical law is obsolete.

But, today we are backpedaling. The early church was plagued with false teachers who wanted to bring believers under the law, and it's happening again. David H. J. Gay says:

Calls for sanctification are too often made in terms of external conformity, this being a consequence of (knowingly or unknowingly) making the law the believer's rule of life. I call this 'recipe preaching'; follow the instructions, tick the boxes, conform to the rules, and you will be sanctified. Not so!​

​

The fact is, whether overt or incipient (and the latter is more insidious than the former), legal preaching is far more common than many realise. There is not enough gospel preaching today. And, as a result, believers are impoverished. No, it is not a printing mistake. Believers suffer when the gospel is not preached. [...] Also, in recent years, I have had to face Judaisers who want to take believers under the law for both justification and sanctification; indeed, for everything, full stop. (Christ is All: No Sanctification by the Law, 2013, pp. 13-16)​

The Gospel must again and again defeat the law, or else society goes to ruin. On the other hand, society also goes to ruin if we do not know the law that abides in the heart, the instinctual law, endowed by evolution. That's why we are caught in this struggle between law and Gospel. The Gospel comes from above and the law from below. The latter is of the devil, says Luther—it comes indirectly from God as Creator of the natural world.

To say that we can no longer rely on what God has instructed is to say that we can no longer rely on God.

That's no longer a valid argument, because "the just shall live by faith" (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38). This is so also in the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15:6).

For example, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Torah. So I used to have a negative view towards the Torah, but I experimented with interpreting the authors of the NT as if they considered the OT to still be authoritative and as if they had the same view of the Torah that is expressed in the Psalms, which I don't think is a stretch considering how much they quoted from or alluded to the OT, and I found that the NT made much more sense and had much more continuity than I had given it credit for.

The fourth gospel says: "God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:17). The law condemns, but grace overcomes the law (Galatians 3:10-18). So Jesus came to liberate us from the law that judges us.

In the third century development of Christianity, the sharp Pauline antithesis between law and gospel, between letter and spirit, was softened, if not effaced. The theology of the Pauline churches was overruled. The amalgamation of law and Gospel made the Christian message easier to grasp, but it also created the problems that the Catholic church suffers from to this day. Luther corrected this tragic failure by returning to Pauline theology. (But it doesn't mean that he got everything right.)

 

[The Liturgist]

Concerning adultery. What if a married man, who is sterile, allows her wife to have extramarital sex in order to have a child? What if an old man, who is impotent, allows his young wife to have extramarital sex in order to save their marriage?

Both of these cases are morally problematic. Also, if a man is sterile, the use of in-vitro fertilization from an anonymous donor seems potentially less problematic (I say potentially, because I have heard that some fertility clinics produce multiple embryos and discard the ones not needed, and this is abortion and a huge moral problem.

Lastly if an old man is impotent, letting her commit adultery does not seem a good way to save the marriage but to destroy it, and makes him an accomplice in sin, and is also unnecessary as there exist in addition to Viagara and so on other means of addressing erectile dysfunction, but also if one is not healthy enough to use Viagara one is not healthy enough to engage in reproductive intercourse in all probability, and what is more, the wife is obliged by her marriage vows to care for her husband “in sickness or in health” to quote the most used wording (based on that found in the 1552 Anglican Book of Common Prayer and its successors), regardless of any disparity in age or the ability of the husband to engage in natural reproduction.*

*I have read that the Jewish marriage vows include a promise by the husband to satisfy het wife in terms of reproduction, or perhaps otherwise, although herein prohibitions on sodomy could apply, certainly in Christianity, and furthermore the Law of Moses allowed for divorce and remarriage without consequence, whereas the Law of Christ does not, with any divorce and remarriage constituting adultery, which is why the Eastern Orthodox church only permits it on the basis of a penance to the guilty party or parties if guilt is mutual before an ecclesiastical tribunal, and further limits the number of remarriages under any circumstances to two, so one can have a maximum of three spouses, and a second remarriage requires special episcopal approval, whereas the Roman Catholic Church (at least until Amoris Laetitia, and even now, I think, despite Pope Francis weakening it) and historically, until the late 20th century, the Church of England would not remarry unless there were grounds for annulment (these have been easy to get of late, and many Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions have also ceased to require divorces to be approved by an ecclesiastical tribunal as a prerequisite to receiving communion as opposed to being denied the Eucharist for a period of time for committing adultery), and being remarried in the future).

 

[Teofrastus]

Both of these cases are morally problematic. Also, if a man is sterile, the use of in-vitro fertilization from an anonymous donor seems potentially less problematic (I say potentially, because I have heard that some fertility clinics produce multiple embryos and discard the ones not needed, and this is abortion and a huge moral problem.

Lastly if an old man is impotent, letting her commit adultery does not seem a good way to save the marriage but to destroy it, and makes him an accomplice in sin, and is also unnecessary as there exist in addition to Viagara and so on other means of addressing erectile dysfunction, but also if one is not healthy enough to use Viagara one is not healthy enough to engage in reproductive intercourse in all probability, and what is more, the wife is obliged by her marriage vows to care for her husband “in sickness or in health” to quote the most used wording (based on that found in the 1552 Anglican Book of Common Prayer and its successors), regardless of any disparity in age or the ability of the husband to engage in natural reproduction.*

*I have read that the Jewish marriage vows include a promise by the husband to satisfy het wife in terms of reproduction, or perhaps otherwise, although herein prohibitions on sodomy could apply, certainly in Christianity, and furthermore the Law of Moses allowed for divorce and remarriage without consequence, whereas the Law of Christ does not, with any divorce and remarriage constituting adultery, which is why the Eastern Orthodox church only permits it on the basis of a penance to the guilty party or parties if guilt is mutual before an ecclesiastical tribunal, and further limits the number of remarriages under any circumstances to two, so one can have a maximum of three spouses, and a second remarriage requires special episcopal approval, whereas the Roman Catholic Church (at least until Amoris Laetitia, and even now, I think, despite Pope Francis weakening it) and historically, until the late 20th century, the Church of England would not remarry unless there were grounds for annulment (these have been easy to get of late, and many Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions have also ceased to require divorces to be approved by an ecclesiastical tribunal as a prerequisite to receiving communion as opposed to being denied the Eucharist for a period of time for committing adultery), and being remarried in the future).

Yes, but how did they solve such problems in biblical times?

 

[Soyeong]

Concerning adultery. What if a married man, who is sterile, allows her wife to have extramarital sex in order to have a child? What if an old man, who is impotent, allows his young wife to have extramarital sex in order to save their marriage? Life presents us with moral problems. Which is more important: the prohibition against adultery or the sanctity of marriage?; the prohibition against adultery or the command to "be fruitful and multiply"?

The true law is the will of God, which we cannot know for certain. However, we must uphold the law in its modern guise, or else civilization will collapse. We should honour our father and mother, and we ought to stand up for our nation and people. (But what about a person who lives in a Communist country, whose parents are staunch Communists?) We must also honour marriage and reject libertinism.

However, Paul explains that Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires (Romans 2:14). So we must look upon the law as written on our hearts. What is required is that we listen to our heart. That's why the Mosaic law is obsolete. We aren't required to follow it blindly, because there are always exceptions. Already Jesus explains this (Mark 2:23-28).

The Law of God is situational, so for instance it is not that it is absolutely wrong to kill someone under any circumstances, but rather there are situations where killing is righteous, such as with Phinehas (Numbers 25:11) and other times where killing is murder. I spoke about priests being commanded to both to rest and making offering on the Sabbath, so one law being greater than the other is part of the system of the Law of God, not an exception to it. Again, this is also why there is much discussion in Judaism about which laws are greater, for instance, according to the Talmud, preservation of life is greater than any other command except murder, idolatry, and sexual immorality, so we must give up our life rather than violate those laws. However, if a violation would be public, especially if it is a time when the ruling authorities are seeking to get Jews to violate the Torah's commands, then we must give up our life rather than commit even the smallest infraction. The New Covenant involves the Torah being put into our minds and written on our heart so that we will obey it, which is the opposite of it being obsolete.

In Romans 3:2, Jews are entrusted with the words of God, so in other words, they were in charge of copying, maintaining, and teaching from the Torah scroll, so Romans 2:14-16 is speaking about Gentiles by nature being doers of the Torah even though they do not have physical possessions of a Torah scroll, which again is the opposite of it being obsolete.

How come the heathen have the law written on their hearts? Today we know that morality has evolved through "social selection". The social preferences of group members and of groups as a whole were having systematic effects on gene pools. A group's ability to flourish through cooperation is lessened by socially disruptive wrongdoers, and that's why the latter were severely punished. As a consequence, wrongdoers contributed to a lesser extent to the gene pool. This explains why we are endowed with a conscience (vid. Boehm, Moral origins: the evolution of virtue, altruism, and shame, 2012).

There is no way to go from speaking about the social preferences of a group members and of groups aa a whole to establishing that everyone has a moral obligation to act in accordance with those preferences regardless of whether or not we agree with them. If people disagree about whether something is moral, then the only way to determine who is correct is by appealing to a higher standard that exists outside of human opinion, which is appealing to God and what He has revealed through His law.

Our conscience part of our fallen nature, so it is not perfect, which is why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:3 that he was not justified even though he was not aware of anything against himself. So our conscience helps us to live in accordance with the Law of God, but it does not replace it, and therefore is not the ultimate determiner of our spiritual condition. Our conscience is capable of warning us when our spiritual condition is in danger, but it is not God's law and needs to be informed by it in order to function correctly.

In Romans 14, there are weak Christians whose conscience is not informed in a mature way, where their conscience won't let them do what they really would be free to do, so again our conscience does not replace the Law of God. Someone's conscience can be so misinformed that their glory is in their shame (Philippians 3:19), where both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15). So the first way to destroy the work of conscience is to misinform it where you don't give it the true Law of God and the second way is to silence it when it speaks. In 1 Timothy 4:2, Paul spoke about a wounded or seared conscience, and a good indicator of this is if someone doesn't feel convicted about continuing to do what God has revealed in His law to be sin.

The ancient Israelites thought wrongly that the heathens had no concept of the law, and thus they were seen as licentious libertines and evil wrongdoers. In fact, just as the Israelites, they had the institution of marriage, honoured their father and mother, prohibited anti-social behaviour, and were required to stand up for their people. So why did they hang the king of Ai on a tree and exterminate his entire people? (Joshua 8:23-29). What wrong had he done? He was an honorable king who defended his people.

The answer is the dark side of the law. The Israelites worshiped the letter but the king of Ai listened to his heart. The letter kills but the spirit gives life. The king of Ai was a harbinger of Christ, then! If we think that the law, a product of evolution, is a law given by God and holds absolute, then it will enpower evil. Sinful creatures as we are, we start chopping with our jagged axes and create devastation. All people who abide by law or rules as perfect givens become evil. This is true whether it's biblical law, quranic law, or ideological law, as in Communism or Fascism. The consequence is always mass-murder.

What grounds to you have for thinking that the king of AI was an honorable person instead of being judged for his wickedness? I don't see where the Bible speaks about the Israelites worshipping the letter, about the king of Ai being a harbinger of Christ, or about mass murder, but I do see where God commanded Ai to be destroyed because of their sin. Do you think that God was wrong to command them to destroy Ai?

Only the Gospel can save us from the horrors of the law, whichever shape it takes. I do not oppose the Mosaic law; I'm just saying that it isn't absolute. It's good for young people to learn the Ten Commandments, because it reminds them of what is written on their heart. That's why Lutheran parsons still preach the Ten Commandments, despite the fact that biblical law is obsolete.

Again, there is the issue that the Gospel that Jesus and Paul taught called for people to obey the Law of God, so the Gospel does not save us from "the horrors of the law", but rather it leads us to obey it. In Jeremiah 31:33, it uses the Hebrew word "Torah", which refers to all of the Law of Moses, not to just the Ten Commandments. Likewise, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the "mishpatim" and "chukim", which are the two major categories of law in the Law of Moses, not just ten of God's commandments.

The laws that God chose to give teaches us about aspects of His nature, for example, if God has commanded His people to commit adultery, then that would have revealed something very different about His nature. Likewise, the Bible often uses the same terms to describe aspects of God's nature as it does to describe aspects of the nature of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), which is because it is His instructions for how to act in accordance with those aspects of His nature, so the view that we have of the law matches the view that we have of the giver of the law, which was certainly the case for the extremely positive view that David had of the law, however, you speaking about "the horrors of the law" is expressing an extremely negative view of the giver of the law.

But, today we are backpedaling. The early church was plagued with false teachers who wanted to bring believers under the law, and it's happening again. David H. J. Gay says:

Calls for sanctification are too often made in terms of external conformity, this being a consequence of (knowingly or unknowingly) making the law the believer's rule of life. I call this 'recipe preaching'; follow the instructions, tick the boxes, conform to the rules, and you will be sanctified. Not so!​

​

The fact is, whether overt or incipient (and the latter is more insidious than the former), legal preaching is far more common than many realise. There is not enough gospel preaching today. And, as a result, believers are impoverished. No, it is not a printing mistake. Believers suffer when the gospel is not preached. [...] Also, in recent years, I have had to face Judaisers who want to take believers under the law for both justification and sanctification; indeed, for everything, full stop. (Christ is All: No Sanctification by the Law, 2013, pp. 13-16)​

The Gospel must again and again defeat the law, or else society goes to ruin. On the other hand, society also goes to ruin if we do not know the law that abides in the heart, the instinctual law, endowed by evolution. That's why we are caught in this struggle between law and Gospel. The Gospel comes from above and the law from below. The latter is of the devil, says Luther—it comes indirectly from God as Creator of the natural world.

All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law and even Jesus began his ministry with that Gospel message, so if you are saying that wanting believers to be under God's law makes someone a false teacher, then you are saying that Jesus was a false teacher. It shouldn't make sense to you to think that the false teachers are those who are teaching people to repent and obey what God has commanded in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow instead of the other way around. Our sanctification is about being made to be like Christ by partaking in His nature through following his example of living in obedience to the Law of God. Again, the problem with the Judaizers was bit that they were teaching Gentiles how to be like Christ through following his example. In Romans 2:13, Paul says that it is only the doers of the law who will be justified. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying His law. Satan does not have the role of leading us to obey what God has commanded, but just the opposite.

While I agree that we are not under the law, Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, so it is important to correctly determine which law he was speaking about us not being under. In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not describe the Law of God, which is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us (Romans 7:12), but rather it is the law of sin where sin had dominion over us. Furthermore, in Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and sin is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4), so we are still under it and are obligated to obey it.

In addition, everything else in Romans 6 speaks in favor of obedience to the Law of God and against sin. For example, in Romana 6:19-23, we are no longer to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin, but are now to present ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, so living in obedience to the Law of God is the content of His gift of eternal life, which is in accordance with verses like Matthew 19:17 and Luke 10:25-28. So we have been set free from being captive to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.

That's no longer a valid argument, because "the just shall live by faith" (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38). This is so also in the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15:6).

"Faith" is synonymous with "rely", so I could have equivalently said that to say that we can no longer have faith in what God has instructed is to say that we can no longer have faith in God. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Law of God, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to it. Furthermore, there are many other verses that connect our faith in God with our obedience to Him, such as in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law of God. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In Psalms 119:30, David chose the way of faith by choosing to obey God's law. In Revelation 14:12, those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. In James 2:18, he would show his faith by his works. In Hebrews 11, every example of faith is an example of works. In Hebrews 3:18-19, unbelief is equated with disobedience. In Numbers 5:6, disobedience to the Law of God is described as breaking faith, and there are many other verses that I could cite to show this connection. So the way that we choose to live testifies about whether we have faith in God to correctly divide between right and wrong through His law or whether we would rather lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:1-6).

The fourth gospel says: "God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:17). The law condemns, but grace overcomes the law (Galatians 3:10-18). So Jesus came to liberate us from the law that judges us.

In the third century development of Christianity, the sharp Pauline antithesis between law and gospel, between letter and spirit, was softened, if not effaced. The theology of the Pauline churches was overruled. The amalgamation of law and Gospel made the Christian message easier to grasp, but it also created the problems that the Catholic church suffers from to this day. Luther corrected this tragic failure by returning to Pauline theology. (But it doesn't mean that he got everything right.)

Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so living in obedience to it through faith is intrinsically part of the concept of Jesus saving us from not living in obedience to it. Grace does not overcome law, but rather God is gracious to us by teaching us to obey it (Psalms 119:29, Exodus 33:13, Genesis 6:8-9, Romans 1:5, Titus 2:11-14. In Deuteronomy 27-28, it describes the blessing of the law for those who choose to obey it and the curse of the law for those who do not, so Jesus freeing us from the curse of the law is freeing us from not living in obedience to it so that we can be free to enjoy the blessing of living in obedience to it.

Again, in Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Sprit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God, and there are many other verses that show that the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it, that obedience brings life, and that the New Covenant involves obedience to it, so you are not reconciling your interpretation of the distinction that he made between the letter and spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:6 with many verses that say the opposite.

In 2 Peter 3:15-18, it says that Paul is difficult to understand, that those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction, and to be careful not to be carried away by the error of lawlessness men in contrast with growing in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Law of God is His instructions for how to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, so we can be confident that when Paul is correctly understood that he was a servant of God who never spoke against anyone obeying the Law of God. Again, in Acts 17:11, they tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so he should not be interpreted as speaking against OT Scripture. In Acts 21:20-24, Paul took steps to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law of God and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it, so even in his day people were misunderstanding him as speaking against obeying the Law of God, and sadly those false rumors persisted to the third century and even to today.

 

[Teofrastus]

The Law of God is situational, so for instance it is not that it is absolutely wrong to kill someone under any circumstances, but rather there are situations where killing is righteous, such as with Phinehas (Numbers 25:11) and other times where killing is murder. I spoke about priests being commanded to both to rest and making offering on the Sabbath, so one law being greater than the other is part of the system of the Law of God, not an exception to it. Again, this is also why there is much discussion in Judaism about which laws are greater, for instance, according to the Talmud, preservation of life is greater than any other command except murder, idolatry, and sexual immorality, so we must give up our life rather than violate those laws. However, if a violation would be public, especially if it is a time when the ruling authorities are seeking to get Jews to violate the Torah's commands, then we must give up our life rather than commit even the smallest infraction. The New Covenant involves the Torah being put into our minds and written on our heart so that we will obey it, which is the opposite of it being obsolete.

In Romans 3:2, Jews are entrusted with the words of God, so in other words, they were in charge of copying, maintaining, and teaching from the Torah scroll, so Romans 2:14-16 is speaking about Gentiles by nature being doers of the Torah even though they do not have physical possessions of a Torah scroll, which again is the opposite of it being obsolete.


There is no way to go from speaking about the social preferences of a group members and of groups aa a whole to establishing that everyone has a moral obligation to act in accordance with those preferences regardless of whether or not we agree with them. If people disagree about whether something is moral, then the only way to determine who is correct is by appealing to a higher standard that exists outside of human opinion, which is appealing to God and what He has revealed through His law.

Our conscience part of our fallen nature, so it is not perfect, which is why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:3 that he was not justified even though he was not aware of anything against himself. So our conscience helps us to live in accordance with the Law of God, but it does not replace it, and therefore is not the ultimate determiner of our spiritual condition. Our conscience is capable of warning us when our spiritual condition is in danger, but it is not God's law and needs to be informed by it in order to function correctly.

In Romans 14, there are weak Christians whose conscience is not informed in a mature way, where their conscience won't let them do what they really would be free to do, so again our conscience does not replace the Law of God. Someone's conscience can be so misinformed that their glory is in their shame (Philippians 3:19), where both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15). So the first way to destroy the work of conscience is to misinform it where you don't give it the true Law of God and the second way is to silence it when it speaks. In 1 Timothy 4:2, Paul spoke about a wounded or seared conscience, and a good indicator of this is if someone doesn't feel convicted about continuing to do what God has revealed in His law to be sin.


What grounds to you have for thinking that the king of AI was an honorable person instead of being judged for his wickedness? I don't see where the Bible speaks about the Israelites worshipping the letter, about the king of Ai being a harbinger of Christ, or about mass murder, but I do see where God commanded Ai to be destroyed because of their sin. Do you think that God was wrong to command them to destroy Ai?


Again, there is the issue that the Gospel that Jesus and Paul taught called for people to obey the Law of God, so the Gospel does not save us from "the horrors of the law", but rather it leads us to obey it. In Jeremiah 31:33, it uses the Hebrew word "Torah", which refers to all of the Law of Moses, not to just the Ten Commandments. Likewise, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the "mishpatim" and "chukim", which are the two major categories of law in the Law of Moses, not just ten of God's commandments.

The laws that God chose to give teaches us about aspects of His nature, for example, if God has commanded His people to commit adultery, then that would have revealed something very different about His nature. Likewise, the Bible often uses the same terms to describe aspects of God's nature as it does to describe aspects of the nature of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), which is because it is His instructions for how to act in accordance with those aspects of His nature, so the view that we have of the law matches the view that we have of the giver of the law, which was certainly the case for the extremely positive view that David had of the law, however, you speaking about "the horrors of the law" is expressing an extremely negative view of the giver of the law.


All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law and even Jesus began his ministry with that Gospel message, so if you are saying that wanting believers to be under God's law makes someone a false teacher, then you are saying that Jesus was a false teacher. It shouldn't make sense to you to think that the false teachers are those who are teaching people to repent and obey what God has commanded in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow instead of the other way around. Our sanctification is about being made to be like Christ by partaking in His nature through following his example of living in obedience to the Law of God. Again, the problem with the Judaizers was bit that they were teaching Gentiles how to be like Christ through following his example. In Romans 2:13, Paul says that it is only the doers of the law who will be justified. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying His law. Satan does not have the role of leading us to obey what God has commanded, but just the opposite.

While I agree that we are not under the law, Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, so it is important to correctly determine which law he was speaking about us not being under. In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not describe the Law of God, which is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us (Romans 7:12), but rather it is the law of sin where sin had dominion over us. Furthermore, in Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and sin is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4), so we are still under it and are obligated to obey it.

In addition, everything else in Romans 6 speaks in favor of obedience to the Law of God and against sin. For example, in Romana 6:19-23, we are no longer to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin, but are now to present ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, so living in obedience to the Law of God is the content of His gift of eternal life, which is in accordance with verses like Matthew 19:17 and Luke 10:25-28. So we have been set free from being captive to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.


"Faith" is synonymous with "rely", so I could have equivalently said that to say that we can no longer have faith in what God has instructed is to say that we can no longer have faith in God. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Law of God, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to it. Furthermore, there are many other verses that connect our faith in God with our obedience to Him, such as in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law of God. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In Psalms 119:30, David chose the way of faith by choosing to obey God's law. In Revelation 14:12, those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. In James 2:18, he would show his faith by his works. In Hebrews 11, every example of faith is an example of works. In Hebrews 3:18-19, unbelief is equated with disobedience. In Numbers 5:6, disobedience to the Law of God is described as breaking faith, and there are many other verses that I could cite to show this connection. So the way that we choose to live testifies about whether we have faith in God to correctly divide between right and wrong through His law or whether we would rather lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:1-6).


Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so living in obedience to it through faith is intrinsically part of the concept of Jesus saving us from not living in obedience to it. Grace does not overcome law, but rather God is gracious to us by teaching us to obey it (Psalms 119:29, Exodus 33:13, Genesis 6:8-9, Romans 1:5, Titus 2:11-14. In Deuteronomy 27-28, it describes the blessing of the law for those who choose to obey it and the curse of the law for those who do not, so Jesus freeing us from the curse of the law is freeing us from not living in obedience to it so that we can be free to enjoy the blessing of living in obedience to it.

Again, in Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Sprit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God, and there are many other verses that show that the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it, that obedience brings life, and that the New Covenant involves obedience to it, so you are not reconciling your interpretation of the distinction that he made between the letter and spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:6 with many verses that say the opposite.

In 2 Peter 3:15-18, it says that Paul is difficult to understand, that those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction, and to be careful not to be carried away by the error of lawlessness men in contrast with growing in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Law of God is His instructions for how to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, so we can be confident that when Paul is correctly understood that he was a servant of God who never spoke against anyone obeying the Law of God. Again, in Acts 17:11, they tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so he should not be interpreted as speaking against OT Scripture. In Acts 21:20-24, Paul took steps to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law of God and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it, so even in his day people were misunderstanding him as speaking against obeying the Law of God, and sadly those false rumors persisted to the third century and even to today.

You keep repeating the theological formula that faith makes up what is lacking in one's 'righteousness' so far. This view is indeed represented in the NT; but it is wrong, because law is irreconcilable with grace. It is like Paul says, either we are 100% righteous or we are saved by faith in the Gospel. The former alternative is undoable, considering that we are helplessly corrupted by original sin. Only Jesus knows the will of the Father. The conclusion is that only Jesus saves. However, the law makes us ready to receive him, when we look into the abyss of hell and despair.

According to Luther, in opus alienum (the alien works of the hidden God), sin overflows and becomes obvious in its consequences. Heaven comes out of hell and righteousness out of sin. The law's only function is to crucify us, to make us aware of our miserable and sinful condition. But at our lowest point, God saves us. Through grace he gives life, but not through the law. To think that we are justified by fulfilling the law, is sinful. Law does not save; it degrades, deposes, and casts you down.

We know today that Paul was close to being branded a heretic by the early Church, and this explains why the early Church Fathers Justin and Papias never mention him. However, the Church could not take this step, in view of the fact that his letters were already so popular. (Still today they are the most read and discussed documents of the NT.) They could not surrender Paul to the Marcionites and the Gnostics, as it would only give them grist to their mill. So, around 150 CE, the Acts of the Apostles was created, in order to canonize Paul and his letters. John Knox says that "[t]he book of Acts serves the double purpose of exalting and idealizing Paul and at the same time definitely subordinating him to the leaders at Jerusalem" (Marcion and the New Testament, p. 120). Words that really belong to Paul are put in Peter's mouth, although Peter was a Judaizer and theologically opposed to Paul. In this way, the Catholic Church created an unsteady compromise, which was bound to create confusion and later a tragic fracture.

We here rehash the irreconcilable views of Peter and Paul, and it could go on forever. It seems that the "Pauline heresy" will never find acceptance among the majority. Also in today's Lutheran Church, the majority follow Peter, not Paul. Why is this? Part of the explanation is that, in Paul and Luther, the realization of sin is so central. People do not want to integrate their dark side, nor see the infernal darkness of humanity. They prefer to escape this realization by following the instructions, ticking the boxes, in the list of sanctifying rules. As a consequence, they grow in pride and arrogance rather than in humility, sink deeper and deeper into the quicksand of sin, and become more and more evil.

"Faith" is synonymous with "rely", so I could have equivalently said that to say that we can no longer have faith in what God has instructed is to say that we can no longer have faith in God.

It's like equating the divine with a set of instructions. But "the wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes" (John 3:8). We cannot pin down God. We cannot pin him like a butterfly on a velvet-covered board. It's what the law-mongers did with Jesus Christ. They pinned him on a cross; but he defeated the law and resurrected.

but I do see where God commanded Ai to be destroyed because of their sin. Do you think that God was wrong to command them to destroy Ai?

"Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13).

The massacre of the kingdom of Ai is an excellent example of what happens when people refuse to listen to their heart. Because they are hardened in their heart, they believe that the letter of the law is the command of God.

Again, this is also why there is much discussion in Judaism about which laws are greater...

It doesn't matter how long the rabbis discuss which law overrides the other in a given situation. We cannot come to a perfect conclusion of what is right and what is wrong in every situation. In that case we would be able to program a robot that always does the right thing. But we cannot create such an algorithm. Only God knows what is right and wrong, and that's why we need guidance by the Holy Spirit. Meteorologists cannot predict the weather pattern with precision. So how on earth could we predict the morally right action in every circumstance? If we are sticklers for the law, then we are bound to do evil, and if we do evil, we are condemned. So we have no other choice than to abandon the law as a programmatic ideal for righteous conduct and instead put our trust in the saving grace of Christ.

 

[Soyeong]

You keep repeating the theological formula that faith makes up what is lacking in one's 'righteousness' so far. This view is indeed represented in the NT; but it is wrong, because law is irreconcilable with grace. It is like Paul says, either we are 100% righteous or we are saved by faith in the Gospel. The former alternative is undoable, considering that we are helplessly corrupted by original sin. Only Jesus knows the will of the Father. The conclusion is that only Jesus saves. However, the law makes us ready to receive him, when we look into the abyss of hell and despair.

The Bible does not support the position that our faith makes up what is lacking in one's righteousness, which is why I agree that it is wrong, however, the reason why it is wrong is not because law is irreconcilable with grace, but rather both are compatible traits of the same God that He expressed throughout both the OT and the NT. I have cited a number number of verses throughout the OT and the NT that show that God is gracious to us by teaching us to obey His law, that the one and only way to become righteous/saved is by grace through faith, and that the way to have faith in God to correctly divide between right and wrong is by obeying what He has instructed.

At no point does the Bible say that we can earn our righteousness as a wage, but rather than has walkways been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the law, which is why there are many verses that speak against trying to do that. In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through 100% perfect obedience, but rather the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Jesus. At no point does the Bible treat the Gospel as being an alternative means of becoming righteous/saved, but rather it has always been the one and only means of becoming saved, and I've cited verses that show that it calls for our obedience to God's law. I've also shown where the Bible says that God's law is not too difficult to obey and there are a number of examples where the Bible says that people obeyed it.

In Psalms 40:8, David said in a parallel statement that delighted in doing will of God and that His law is within his heart, so the Father has straightforwardly made His will known through what He has commanded in His law. Likewise, Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus in a parallel statement that only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven and that he will tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew then, so again the way to do the will of the Father is by obeying His law. Furthermore, we couldn't do the will of the Father if no one knows it, so if only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then Jesus was saying that no one will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is God's the embodiment of God's word, so saying that Jesus saves is not an alternative to us embodying God's word, but rather that is the way that he saves.

According to Luther, in opus alienum (the alien works of the hidden God), sin overflows and becomes obvious in its consequences. Heaven comes out of hell and righteousness out of sin. The law's only function is to crucify us, to make us aware of our miserable and sinful condition. But at our lowest point, God saves us. Through grace he gives life, but not through the law. To think that we are justified by fulfilling the law, is sinful. Law does not save; it degrades, deposes, and casts you down.

Luther's position is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible say that the law's only purpose is to crucify us. The Law teaches us how to know Him and have eternal life through walking in His way in accordance with His nature and by contrast it also teaches us what sin is. Our salvation is from sin and sin is the transgression of God's law, so living in obedience to it is the content of His gift of saving us from nonliving in obedience to it. Again, I cited a number of verses in both the OT and the NT where God is gracious to us by teaching us to walk in His way in obedience to His law. While Paul denied that we can earn our justification as a wage as the result of our obedience to God's law (Romans 4:1-5), he also said that only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13), so there must be reasons why our justification requires us to choose to be doers of the law other than in order to earn it as a wage, such as faith insofar as our faith upholds God's law (Romans 3:31).

We know today that Paul was close to being branded a heretic by the early Church, and this explains why the early Church Fathers Justin and Papias never mention him. However, the Church could not take this step, in view of the fact that his letters were already so popular. (Still today they are the most read and discussed documents of the NT.) They could not surrender Paul to the Marcionites and the Gnostics, as it would only give them grist to their mill. So, around 150 CE, the Acts of the Apostles was created, in order to canonize Paul and his letters. John Knox says that "[t]he book of Acts serves the double purpose of exalting and idealizing Paul and at the same time definitely subordinating him to the leaders at Jerusalem" (Marcion and the New Testament, p. 120). Words that really belong to Paul are put in Peter's mouth, although Peter was a Judaizer and theologically opposed to Paul. In this way, the Catholic Church created an unsteady compromise, which was bound to create confusion and later a tragic fracture.

We here rehash the irreconcilable views of Peter and Paul, and it could go on forever. It seems that the "Pauline heresy" will never find acceptance among the majority. Also in today's Lutheran Church, the majority follow Peter, not Paul. Why is this? Part of the explanation is that, in Paul and Luther, the realization of sin is so central. People do not want to integrate their dark side, nor see the infernal darkness of humanity. They prefer to escape this realization by following the instructions, ticking the boxes, in the list of sanctifying rules. As a consequence, they grow in pride and arrogance rather than in humility, sink deeper and deeper into the quicksand of sin, and become more and more evil.

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers how to practice Judaism by setting an example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so if you think that Paul was opposed to following what Christ taught in accordance with what God has commanded, then you have a decision to make about who has the higher authority and who to follow. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for him was if they taught against obeying His law, so if Paul did that, then those who reject him as being a false prophet would be correctly acting in accordance with what God has instructed His people to do, but the reality is that Paul never did that. Growing in pride an arrogance rather than humility is contrary to God's law.

It's like equating the divine with a set of instructions. But "the wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes" (John 3:8). We cannot pin down God. We cannot pin him like a butterfly on a velvet-covered board. It's what the law-mongers did with Jesus Christ. They pinned him on a cross; but he defeated the law and resurrected.

The Law of God reveals the mind and wisdom of God. While the fullness of God is beyond our understanding, His word reveals things about the nature of who He is that are within our understanding. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from God's law, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross. Jesus never criticizes the Pharisees for obeying God's law, but he did criticize them for not obeying it (Mark 7:6-9) or for not obeying it correctly (Matthew 23:23).

"Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13).

The massacre of the kingdom of Ai is an excellent example of what happens when people refuse to listen to their heart. Because they are hardened in their heart, they believe that the letter of the law is the command of God.

Joshua 8:1 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land.

Joshua 8 is an excellent example of the Israelites upholding justice and righteousness in accordance with obeying what God commanded, but it says nothing about the people refusing to listen to their heart, hardening their heart, or believing that the letter of the law is the command of God.

It doesn't matter how long the rabbis discuss which law overrides the other in a given situation. We cannot come to a perfect conclusion of what is right and what is wrong in every situation. In that case we would be able to program a robot that always does the right thing. But we cannot create such an algorithm. Only God knows what is right and wrong, and that's why we need guidance by the Holy Spirit. Meteorologists cannot predict the weather pattern with precision. So how on earth could we predict the morally right action in every circumstance? If we are sticklers for the law, then we are bound to do evil, and if we do evil, we are condemned. So we have no other choice than to abandon the law as a programmatic ideal for righteous conduct and instead put our trust in the saving grace of Christ.

God's word instructs how to divide between right and wrong and gives authority to priests and judges to making rulings in that regard that the people were required to follow (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so following the guidance of the Spirit is not doing something other than acting in accordance with what God's law instructs. It is not obeying God's law that leads us to do evil, but not obeying it. It is contradictory to want to put your trust in the one who embodies God's word, but not put your trust in God's word by embodying it. We can't trust God by refusing to trust what He has instructed.

 

[HIM]

I will discuss some of your objections.



No, that's not what Paul is saying. He says that "the whole law can be summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Galatians 5:14). Carter Lindberg (Love: A Brief History Through Western Christianity) explains that 'love' in the bible signifies a communal ethos, understood as mutual solidarity within the community (p. 25). It means to take care of your neighbour as you take care of yourself. (The ancients had not the modern subjective view of 'love'.) We ought to take responsibility for the people close to us. However, Augustine explains that it is sinful to help strangers before our own people. So the love commandment is not such a big deal, actually. Despite this, most Western people are unable to live up to it. In fact, many have reversed the love commandment: they help the stranger but not the neighbour.

We shall be responsible citizens in our community, respectful and helpful to all. This is good enough, because Jesus takes care of the rest. We cannot redeem ourselves. In fact, when living in faith, we are doing the law indirectly, because we put it on the shoulders of Jesus Christ to do the redemptive work. Salvation has been outsourced to the Christ. As long as we think that we can climb a ladder to God by following God's law, we are in denial of Christ as redeemer. Why is this so hard to understand, that Jesus's ascension means the redemption for us all, similar to how Adam's fall means the damnation for us all?



Certain of Paul's Jewish followers thought that by simply being Jewish, they would be declared righteous by God. But Paul explains that they, too, must be doers of the law, which is simply to be respectful and helpful to people in the congregation and the local community, regardless of ethnic belonging and societal status. Behave correctly towards the bum, too! This is really a simple demand, yet seems impossible to most people.



You dichotomize the 'law of sin and death' and the 'law of God' in a way which smacks of Gnosticism or Manichaeism. Remember the Christian teaching. According to Christian theology and the principle of privatio boni, sin and evil have no impetus of their own. Evil lacks essential being. Instead it acquires its being from good, because it is parasitic on good. Thus, despite the fact that the law of God is good, it only makes the human subject sink deeper into sin, and it makes him obsess about being righteous like the worst kind of hypocritical Pharisee. To think that you are righteous or capable of being righteous is the worst sin, because you are making yourself the equal of Jesus Christ.

It is because Paul wants to do good according to the law of God that he sinks deeper into sin: "When I want to do good, evil is right there with me" (Romans 7:21). He explains this mechanism himself: "To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law" (Romans 5:13). Thus, as Luther explains, we are always simul justus et peccator, at the same time holy and profane, saved and damned.

Less Luther more Bible.

Sin only has power when we commit it. It separates us from God within whom we have life. Jesus said he that commits it is a slave to it in John 8. As Paul wrote in chapter 7 he delights in the law of God but sees another law in his members. Another law. And that is said in respect to the law he said he found, that when he would do good evil is present with him. Which is said in context to the statement he made in regard to, it wasn't him that did it, but the sin that dwelt in him. He called this the law of sin. That he can't help himself but sin. And that is because he sinned and lost his connection to God. Which agrees with Jesus' words when He said he that commits sin is a slave to it. And the servant of sin shall not abide in the house forever. But the Son forever. And if the Son shall set you free, free you are indeed. As Paul wrote in chapter 6 which seven is in context to. How can we who are dead to sin live any longer therein? Knowing we have been baptized into Jesus' death we now walk in newness of life through His resurrection. Whereas before we were servants to sin now we are servants to God and His righteousness because the old man is dead through baptism and now we alive unto God through Jesus. Which is why Paul said in 8:2 that the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus set us free from the law of sin, not being able to control ourselves because we were a servant to sin. But sin was condemned in the flesh so that the righteousness of the Law be fulfilled in us. As Jesus said if the Son shall make us free we are indeed.


Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[Teofrastus]

The Bible does not support the position that our faith makes up what is lacking in one's righteousness, which is why I agree that it is wrong, however, the reason why it is wrong is not because law is irreconcilable with grace, but rather both are compatible traits of the same God that He expressed throughout both the OT and the NT. I have cited a number number of verses throughout the OT and the NT that show that God is gracious to us by teaching us to obey His law, that the one and only way to become righteous/saved is by grace through faith, and that the way to have faith in God to correctly divide between right and wrong is by obeying what He has instructed.

At no point does the Bible say that we can earn our righteousness as a wage, but rather than has walkways been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the law, which is why there are many verses that speak against trying to do that. In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through 100% perfect obedience, but rather the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Jesus. At no point does the Bible treat the Gospel as being an alternative means of becoming righteous/saved, but rather it has always been the one and only means of becoming saved, and I've cited verses that show that it calls for our obedience to God's law. I've also shown where the Bible says that God's law is not too difficult to obey and there are a number of examples where the Bible says that people obeyed it.

In Psalms 40:8, David said in a parallel statement that delighted in doing will of God and that His law is within his heart, so the Father has straightforwardly made His will known through what He has commanded in His law. Likewise, Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus in a parallel statement that only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven and that he will tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew then, so again the way to do the will of the Father is by obeying His law. Furthermore, we couldn't do the will of the Father if no one knows it, so if only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then Jesus was saying that no one will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is God's the embodiment of God's word, so saying that Jesus saves is not an alternative to us embodying God's word, but rather that is the way that he saves.


Luther's position is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible say that the law's only purpose is to crucify us. The Law teaches us how to know Him and have eternal life through walking in His way in accordance with His nature and by contrast it also teaches us what sin is. Our salvation is from sin and sin is the transgression of God's law, so living in obedience to it is the content of His gift of saving us from nonliving in obedience to it. Again, I cited a number of verses in both the OT and the NT where God is gracious to us by teaching us to walk in His way in obedience to His law. While Paul denied that we can earn our justification as a wage as the result of our obedience to God's law (Romans 4:1-5), he also said that only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13), so there must be reasons why our justification requires us to choose to be doers of the law other than in order to earn it as a wage, such as faith insofar as our faith upholds God's law (Romans 3:31).


Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers how to practice Judaism by setting an example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so if you think that Paul was opposed to following what Christ taught in accordance with what God has commanded, then you have a decision to make about who has the higher authority and who to follow. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for him was if they taught against obeying His law, so if Paul did that, then those who reject him as being a false prophet would be correctly acting in accordance with what God has instructed His people to do, but the reality is that Paul never did that. Growing in pride an arrogance rather than humility is contrary to God's law.


The Law of God reveals the mind and wisdom of God. While the fullness of God is beyond our understanding, His word reveals things about the nature of who He is that are within our understanding. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from God's law, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross. Jesus never criticizes the Pharisees for obeying God's law, but he did criticize them for not obeying it (Mark 7:6-9) or for not obeying it correctly (Matthew 23:23).


Joshua 8:1 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land.

Joshua 8 is an excellent example of the Israelites upholding justice and righteousness in accordance with obeying what God commanded, but it says nothing about the people refusing to listen to their heart, hardening their heart, or believing that the letter of the law is the command of God.


God's word instructs how to divide between right and wrong and gives authority to priests and judges to making rulings in that regard that the people were required to follow (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so following the guidance of the Spirit is not doing something other than acting in accordance with what God's law instructs. It is not obeying God's law that leads us to do evil, but not obeying it. It is contradictory to want to put your trust in the one who embodies God's word, but not put your trust in God's word by embodying it. We can't trust God by refusing to trust what He has

Generally speaking, Paul is not at odds with the message of Jesus. After all, Jesus explains that he gives his life as a ransom for many. He declares that he was to be lifted up for the redemption of sinners, and the benefits of his salvation were to be enjoyed by those alone who believe in him. Jesus relativizes religious law, and he detests practicing the law in public: "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven" (Matthew 6:1-5). In this case, righteousness gives no rewards! Already here can we see the beginnings of Pauline theology. But Paul develops Jesus's message to its logical conclusion. James Jeffrey explains that Paul "received his gospel from Jesus Christ. It may present views of the gospel not to be found in the teaching of Jesus, but which are complementary and in many cases the logical outcome of that teaching" (Jeffrey, The Gospel of Paul-The Gospel of Jesus, 1899, p. 54, here). He says:

In more recent times some critics have endeavoured to make out that the writings of the great Apostle set forth a different gospel from that contained in the sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. We recognise the profound truth of Peter's words, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." But it does not follow that the same Spirit of Truth who spake in and through Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:4) does not speak in and through Paul. Jesus distinctly assured His disciples that He had not spoken the last word or summed up the whole truth to them, and that the Holy Spirit who was to come after His departure would reveal to them new and fuller developments of the truths taught by Himself. [...] Writing to the Galatians, [Paul] says: "For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-17); [...] [Paul] rests his teaching on the direct authority of Jesus Himself: "I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (I Corinthians 11:23). (ibid. pp. 9-11)​

As long as Paul was a stickler for the law, he could not receive the Spirit, because he had God pinned like a butterfly on a velvet-covered board. Religious law "kills" God, thwarts revelation! Only after he was struck down by God on the way to Damascus, and forced to abandon the law, he was ready to receive the happy tidings. The Spirit was released from its confinement in religious law.

Joshua 8 is an excellent example of the Israelites upholding justice and righteousness in accordance with obeying what God commanded...

No, God did not command the massacre. Priests and prophets interpreted God's will, and then they proclaimed that God has ordered it. Nobody has immediate knowledge of the will of God except Jesus Christ (Luke 10:22). It was the job of priests and prophets to serve as intermediaries between God and the people. Priests have always figured out the will of god(s) by different means. For example, the Roman augurs looked for signs in nature, such as the flight of birds, to figure out the will of the gods. So when the Jewish priests say the words "God says...", it shall be read as "The priesthood interprets God as saying that..."

... so following the guidance of the Spirit is not doing something other than acting in accordance with what God's law instructs. It is not obeying God's law that leads us to do evil, but not obeying it.

All peoples in history that have become worshipers of religious law have self-destructed. This was the consequence of the Mosaic religion, Islamist religion, Nazism, and Communism. The Hittite religion is a perfect example. It was extremely legalistic, and that's why the Hittite empire suddenly went up in smoke in 1180 BCE. Western civilization, on the other hand, builds on Christianity, a non-legalistic religion. (The king must take care of legal matters.) It explains the success of the West, despite the many setbacks caused by ideological law-mongers, who attempted to bring us back to religious law in different forms.

While Paul denied that we can earn our justification as a wage as the result of our obedience to God's law (Romans 4:1-5), he also said that only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13), so there must be reasons why our justification requires us to choose to be doers of the law other than in order to earn it as a wage, such as faith insofar as our faith upholds God's law (Romans 3:31).

[...] I have cited a number number of verses throughout the OT and the NT that show that God is gracious to us by teaching us to obey His law, that the one and only way to become righteous/saved is by grace through faith, and that the way to have faith in God to correctly divide between right and wrong is by obeying what He has instructed.

Let us make clear, once and for all, that the Mosaic law was given to Israel only (Leviticus 26:46): "These are the commandments which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel on Mount Sinai" (Leviticus 27:34). Thus, the Gentiles are not under the law and have never been under the law, and Paul underscores this (Romans 2:14-15). So if any prophet, including Jesus, says that we are expected to follow the Mosaic law, it is only valid for the Jews. However, the law only served to confine Israel until the coming of Christ (Galatians 3:19-24). It was temporary and is no longer valid.

However, there's another sense in which we can speak of the law, namely the law of the heart. Paul explains that Gentiles, who do not have the law, often do better than the Jews, which have the law. Such Gentiles are doers of the law, which counts them as God's people. Thus, it is not enough to have the law. In fact, it plays no role at all, anymore. As a matter of fact, Gentiles seem to be doing good without it. David H. J. Gay says:

Indeed, even before the giving of the law to Israel, some pagans had a more finely-tuned sense of right and wrong than some of the godly. Take the episode of Abraham (and Sarah) lying to Abimelech king of Gerar, the latter's reaction, and his reproof of the father of the faithful (Gen. 20). Abimelech certainly showed a greater sense of morality than Abraham. The same can be said for Abimelech king of the Philistines and Isaac (and Rebekah) (Gen. 26). Hamor the Hivite, though he certainly had his faults, showed more integrity than Jacob's sons (Gen. 34). Where did pagans get their sense of right and wrong, their sense of injustice? Romans 2:14-15 is the clear biblical explanation. (Christ is All, p. 47)​

However, as I've already explained, the law of the heart is a product of evolution, which means that it is ambivalent. ("Take care of your neighbour and be a responsible parent and citizen. This will owe you respect. On the other hand, ravage the land of the neigbouring people. This will make you a hero.") So the natural law is both good and evil, and it cannot always be trusted. (Thomas Aquinas thought so, but he was wrong.)

There's yet another sense in which we can speak of the law, namely the general legalistic tendency in human psychology. Again and again people fall for diverse "isms", which only cause destruction. It is clear that legalism, in whatever form, has only destructive consequences. We have no other choice than to rely on natural law. But we must be careful, as it might lead us astray, and then we're bound for damnation.

In this sense, we are being oppressed by the law. We are hemmed in by life's necessities, expected to become respectable citizens and waste our lives on meaningless jobs. Like the many young Russian and Ukrainian men, today, we are expected to sacrifice our life on society's altar. And if we do not comply, then we will be tormented by the mob, and this is also according to natural law. The law torments us, but religious law makes matters even worse. The law of sin is indeed the same as religious law, because the latter points out our sinfulness and oppresses us, and Paul explains all about it in Galatians.

 

[Teofrastus]

Sin only has power when we commit it. It separates us from God within whom we have life...

Absolutely not! Paul portrays it as a power that always works to undermine the cosmos. According to Augustine, it is the decay of orderliness and wholeness. We mustn't reduce sin and equate it with ill deeds. Jesus says that "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Thus, he is saying that we are bound to sin. We shall not think that there's a way around it. Paul understood this and explained that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).