|
Title: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: NorthStar on June 27, 2006, 10:56:06 PM Galations 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. And yet, over in Romans we read: Romans 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law". Is one right and the other wrong ? Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Rookieupgrade1 on June 29, 2006, 03:39:07 PM The 2 compliment each other not contradict.
most believers will tell you that the bible which is the word of God can not contradict itself so upon closer examination the assumption that a superficial out of context contradiction is reveled to be seemless. Gods law was refereed to by Christ Himself and should be obeyed, Christs commandment is in addition and while we are saved by Him, we can not ignore the moral law of God. At the same time we have to keep some things in context, like why eating of some things was forbidden in the OT and OK in the new. Social conditions have to be accounted for when interpreting the bible, just as today.........however moral law never changes The short version. Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Shammu on June 30, 2006, 08:13:30 AM The 2 compliment each other not contradict. AMEN rookie something few people think about, is the differences between the Old Testament, and the New Testament. most believers will tell you that the bible which is the word of God can not contradict itself so upon closer examination the assumption that a superficial out of context contradiction is reveled to be seemless. Gods law was refereed to by Christ Himself and should be obeyed, Christs commandment is in addition and while we are saved by Him, we can not ignore the moral law of God. At the same time we have to keep some things in context, like why eating of some things was forbidden in the OT and OK in the new. Social conditions have to be accounted for when interpreting the bible, just as today.........however moral law never changes The short version. Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: airIam2worship on June 30, 2006, 08:34:45 AM AMEN rookie something few people think about, is the differences between the Old Testament, and the New Testament. Amen DW, another thing people often forget is that God NEVER contradicts Himself. Further study of the Scriptures and reading the contexts teaches us exactly what God wants us to know. The Bible is God's Word, He wants us to understand it, He has given us many Scriptures that will prove His desire for us to know Him. If we don't understand what we are reading all we have to do is ask God, the Author to give us the wisdom to know. Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Brother Jerry on June 30, 2006, 08:37:59 AM You should always take a look at the verses before and after specific verses that you quote. THey usually contain the answers that you are looking for. We should always take things in their context.
Paul is clearly explaining that it was the law that was to guide Israel to Jesus. God provided the law in order to pave the path to righteousness through Jesus. In Vs 21 Paul even states that there is not a law that can give life. "for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." And even in Romans you had quoted if you read the chapter, even just the last half of the chapter you will find your answer. Paul again lets us know the law was for Israel. And in Vs 21 he tells us that "righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets". The law was designed to prepare the Jews for Christ. And even at the time of Paul after Christ's death the law is being fulfilled. The prophecies of the law are there and have been filled and are being filled. Even the saints of the OT were not justified by simply following the letter of the law. And Paul mentions that here in vs 20 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" and 28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" Now take a look at Hebrews Chapter 11 and notice something down through here. By faith Enoch, by faith Noah, by faith Abraham, by faith Moses, etc, etc. And as you read these versus it does not say that by faith so and so followed the law. Nay they say they did great things or were blessed. It was not their adherence to the word of God that these people are mentioned and blessed. But it is their willingness to do God's will that gained them God's favor. They were justified in their faith just as we are today. Rom 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Noah could not have built the ark if he simply followed laws. He had to have faith. Moses could not have parted the Red Sea simply by following laws, he had to have faith. The walls of Jericho would not have fallen if the people just followed laws, they had to have faith. Faith is what makes us or breaks us. Giving up 100% for Jesus and trusting in him completely. If we even assume that our salvation is 10% us and 90% Jesus we have failed. If we even think it is .0000000001% us we have failed. All to Glory and Jesus, 100% trust and faith in Him that redeemed us, and justified us. There is no contradiction. Further study reveals that these verses go hand in hand, when you put them into their context. Sincerely Brother Jerry Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: airIam2worship on June 30, 2006, 08:39:47 AM AMEN
Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: friendship bunch on June 30, 2006, 09:58:06 PM :) God gave the law, so the law must be good. I think that in general Paul says to follow the law, but it is not the law that saves you. Back in his day there were people who thought that if they upheld the law perfectly then they would go to heaven. What he is trying to say is that we are to follow the law unless it contradicts what god said in his word. Paul says in Romans 7:13 that the law is there so that we will reconize sin as sin. I don't know if any of this makes sense, but those are my thoughts on the matter. 8)
Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Soldier4Christ on June 30, 2006, 10:10:52 PM God gave the law so that we would see that we are not righteous on our own and incapable of keeping the law. To obtain righteousness we need Him and His wondrous plan of Salvation.
Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: airIam2worship on June 30, 2006, 10:20:31 PM Hello Frienship Bunch, God did give the Law, but He also gave His Son so that we are not condemened by breaking the law, we as imperfect humans are incapable of living in the flesh and not sining in one way or another, thank God for His gracious mercy and for His unspeakable gift to us, Salvation thru the Blood of the Lamb, Jesus, Who fulfilled the Law. We are now living under Grace. God's Grace. Which is better than the law, it is a New Covenant. Yes we should always do what is right, but it is by God's mercy and grace and by the shedding of the Blood of Jesus that we are made righteous.
Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: 1Tim on July 01, 2006, 03:11:30 AM How would you communicate to a man born blind, what ' sight ' is? How would you communicate what ' love ' is, without describing the actions it prompts us to do?
In Deut. 6:4, God prefaces His law with the words Jesus echoed in Mark 12:29, as the greatest commandment. In the parallel passage in Matt. 22:36-40 Jesus said, "...All the law and the prophets hang on these". In the OT, God described the behavior we were to have, that was a behavior prompted by love. It wasn't obedience (behavior modification) God wanted, it was the state of being that prompts those actions in us that He was shooting for, and revealing that we don't have... Psalm 51:15-17 15 O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. 16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. Jesus also revealed to us the state of being we are expected to have, but not by describing it, but by illustrating it for us, and demonstrating what it looks like. Paul is trying to relay to us that that state of being, though it is required by God that we have it, is not achieved by obedience, but by receiving a gift Jesus won for us, and offers freely to us. Once Jesus resides in us, the state of being requirement is fulfilled, and the behavior falls in line with it. Put another way, receiving Jesus comes first, then Jesus causes us to be right with God, and the natural consequence is our behavior follows. Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: NorthStar on July 01, 2006, 07:56:39 PM The 2 compliment each other not contradict. most believers will tell you that the bible which is the word of God can not contradict itself so upon closer examination the assumption that a superficial out of context contradiction is reveled to be seemless. Quote Gods law was refereed to by Christ Himself and should be obeyed, Christs commandment is in addition and while we are saved by Him, we can not ignore the moral law of God. And is one of the reasons I keep the 4th commandment, the 7th day sabbath.I do not keep the 7th day sabbath to be saved, but because I am saved, and love Jesus enough, to do what He says to do. Because the 7th day sabbath is the test of loyalty, towards God Himself...as He says it is Quote At the same time we have to keep some things in context, like why eating of some things was forbidden in the OT and OK in the new. Just remember that when Christ comes again, He will destroy those people eating pork and other unclean items, (Isaiah 66:15-17)Social conditions have to be accounted for when interpreting the bible, just as today.........however moral law never changes The short version. Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Shammu on July 01, 2006, 08:05:09 PM Quote And is one of the reasons I keep the 4th commandment, the 7th day sabbath. I do not keep the 7th day sabbath to be saved, but because I am saved, and love Jesus enough, to do what He says to do. Because the 7th day sabbath is the test of loyalty, towards God Himself...as He says it is So then you don't worship God on any other day then?? Sorry I worship the Lord, every single day I draw breath. Resting in the hands, of the Lord. Bob ============================================================ The teaching of E.G. White are not allowed on this forum NorthStar. Moderator Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Soldier4Christ on July 01, 2006, 08:22:54 PM Just remember that when Christ comes again, He will destroy those people eating pork and other unclean items, (Isaiah 66:15-17) Northstar you are taking this out of context just as you are the other verses. Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. You have been warned enough. moderator Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Brother Jerry on July 01, 2006, 10:21:04 PM The short version Northstar
The sabbath was for the Jews. It was created for them, kept by them, traditionalized by them, and a part of the covenant that God had with them. That covenant was done away with at the time of Christ's death. Symbolized by the tearing of the curtain in the Temple at his death. Just as the Passover was created for the Jews as a symbol of the sacrafice that is to come with Jesus. That sacrafice is done, why should any continue to follow those precepts? We have Easter as just a holiday. We know that it is no holier than any other day of the week. NOw do not get me wrong I am grateful that we have Easter and Christmas and wish that Jesus' name would show up more on those days and create more days in His honor. But they are just days and not once in the Bible are we directed to establish a holiday celebrating His death or His resurrection. INstead we are to celebrate His resurrection each and every day. I believe that if you sit down in earnest prayer and start to study a Bible. KJV or even NASB then you will begin to see the truth of the Sabbath as well as many other eye opening revelations. It is there and it is all that we need to see the truth that Jesus has brought us. Sincerely Brother Jerry Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Soldier4Christ on July 01, 2006, 10:27:35 PM The Bible is very careful to warn us
about people who “advocate abstaining from foods, which God created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Timothy 4:1-3). The apostle Paul asks with dismay, “Why . . . do you submit yourself to decrees, such as ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch’?” (Colossians 2:20-21). He is jealous for the full enjoyment of Christian liberty. Like a great declaration of freedom over every book on fasting flies the banner, “Food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat” (1 Corinthians 8:8). There once were two men. One said, “I fast twice a week”; the other said, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Only one went down to his house justified (Luke 18:12-14). The discipline of self-denial is fraught with dangers— perhaps only surpassed by the dangers of indulgence. These also we are warned about: “All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12). What masters us has become our god; and Paul warns us about those “whose god is their appetite” (Philippians 3:19). Appetite dictates the direction of their lives. The stomach is sovereign. This has a religious expression and an irreligious one. Religiously “persons . . . turn the grace of our God into licentiousness” (Jude 4) and tout the slogan, “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food” (1 Corinthians 6:13). Irreligiously, with no pretext of pardoning grace, persons simply yield to “the desires for other things [that] enter in and choke the word” (Mark 4:19). “Desires for other things”—there’s the enemy. And the only weapon that will triumph is a deeper hunger for God. The weakness of our hunger for God is not because he is unsavory, but because we keep ourselves stuffed with “other things.” Perhaps, then, the denial of our stomach’s appetite for food might express, or even increase, our soul’s appetite for God. What is at stake here is not just the good of our souls, but also the glory of God. God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. The fight of faith is a fight to feast on all that God is for us in Christ. What we hunger for most, we worship. Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Soldier4Christ on July 01, 2006, 11:13:28 PM The above post is an excerpt from a book "A Hunger For God" by John Piper. It is a statement primarily about fasting however I thought it appropriate here also where there are those teaching us to abstain from certain foods.
Let us not forget the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: doc on July 06, 2006, 10:28:35 PM Northstar,
The Galatians verses speak for themselves - the schoolmaster (tutor) is out of a job when we realize our sin, repent and receive the gift of faith that comes to us at our salvation. The Romans verse is best left up to Albert Barnes in his 1850 commentary: Romans 3:31 [Yea, we establish the law] That is, by the doctrine of justification by faith; by this scheme of treating people as righteous, the moral law is confirmed, its obligation is enforced, obedience to it is secured. This is done in the following manner: (1) God showed respect to it, in being unwilling to pardon sinners without an atonement. He showed that it could not be violated with impunity; that he was resolved to fulfil its threatenings. (2) Jesus Christ came to magnify it, and to make it honorable. He showed respect to it in his life; and he died to show that God was determined to inflict its penalty. (3) The plan of justification by faith leads to an observance of the Law. The sinner sees the evil of transgression. He sees the respect which God has shown to the Law. He gives his heart to God, and yields himself to obey his Law. All the sentiments that arise from the conviction of sin; that flow from gratitude for mercies; that spring from love to God; all his views of the sacredness of the Law, prompt him to yield obedience to it. The fact that Christ endured such sufferings to show the evil of violating the Law, is one of the strongest motives prompting to obedience. We do not easily and readily repeat what overwhelms our best friends in calamity; and we are brought to hate what inflicted such woes on the Saviour's soul. (from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database Copyright © 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) When the saved sinner comprehends his life under Grace, he studies "the Word" and obeys the Law of Christ (Gal 6:2) and the two laws Jesus said hang (are based on) all the Law and the prophets.(Mat 22:40) I suspect any other "law keeping" is in the arena of merit, but only God knows the heart - He will decide - I must simply trust Him. doc Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: ollie on July 08, 2006, 07:02:21 AM Galations 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. The law, of sin and death, being a shadow of what was to come and not the very image. Hebrews 10:13:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. And yet, over in Romans we read: Romans 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law". Is one right and the other wrong ? Jeremiah said this about law to come: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." Jeremiah 31:33 Paul said this: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 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: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."[/i] Romans 8:1-4, See also Hebrews 8 The law has not been done away, but is written in the hearts of the faithful in Christ, who walk after the Spirit, not the flesh. ollie Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: airIam2worship on July 08, 2006, 07:15:16 AM Hey Ollie, it's been a while since I've seen you, welcome back :D
Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Shammu on July 08, 2006, 08:49:41 AM Only man contradicts, what the Bible says.
Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: airIam2worship on July 08, 2006, 12:24:12 PM Amen Brother, God does not contradict Himself
Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: ollie on July 08, 2006, 01:00:43 PM Hey Ollie, it's been a while since I've seen you, welcome back :D HI,Thank you. Yes, Anymore I read more than I write. ollie Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: airIam2worship on July 08, 2006, 01:02:41 PM I'm happy to see that you are doing well. :D
Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Allinall on July 10, 2006, 12:18:31 PM Hi! Man, has work had me busy or WHAT?!! :D Anywho, I couldn't help but reply to this particular thread and expound upon some of my previous replies to this topic...
No. Paul doesn't contradict himself. God's word never contradicts itself. I believe that wholeheartedly. But, it's one thing to say it, and another to understand it to be true. In this matter, it's important to fully understand the Law. The Law was given, simply, to point to a Savior to come. It was both provisional and prophetic in nature. Provisional, in that it satisfied God's demanded payment for sin. "Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin." The Law provided an understanding for the sacrificial system God had designed. It pointed to the sin of mankind, and God's provisionary atonement for that sin to make a relationship with Him possible. One believed God, and was saved. One obeyed the Law to enjoy the relationship God had made possible, through the observances and sacrifices. The Law was prophetic, in that it pointed to a need for a completed sacrifice. Each sacrifice of the Old Testament Law dealt with sin, but did not remove sin. Each sacrifice was a picture of what Christ would do one day for mankind. A study of the sacrifices is quite humbling, and one I highly recommend. The Law, as I said earlier, was simply given to point to a Savior to come, and man's inherant need of His salvation. When Jesus came, He said that He'd not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Simply put, the Law had been incomplete; and while sacrificially acceptable, was not a complete dealing with sin. When Jesus died on the cross He completed the Law. He completed each sacrifice in a very final way. No previous sacrifice was left wanting - hence, "...there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins..." Hebrews 10:26b - for better context Hebrews 10 (NOTE: Herein lends strong support to those who hold to the OSAS position). Because Jesus completed the Law, there is no Law that we are under. There is no Law we need obey. The God Who gave the Law in order that man might see his need of salvation to have a relationship with Him, has provided the salvation once for all so that we can have a relationship with Him. The relationship with God under the Law was in large part on the shoulders of man. The relationship with God under Grace is all Him. Yes, He leads. Yes, we must follow, and obey His will. But make no mistake - WE ARE UNDER THE GRACE OF OUR GOD NOT UNDER THE LAW. To believe that we are is to nullify what Jesus did on the cross. Hence Paul warns: Quote O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith-- just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"-- so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[ nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3 Just a thought... :) Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: Allinall on July 10, 2006, 12:30:54 PM And here's another thought...NONE of my piccies are workin'! Granted, that's not on par with God's eternal plan for our salvation...but STILL! ;D
Title: Re: Does Paul Contradict Himself ? Post by: linssue55 on July 16, 2006, 12:57:44 PM Galations 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. And yet, over in Romans we read: Romans 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law". Is one right and the other wrong ? They are both right. The Mosaic law was set up for the exodus crowd that were WITHOUT "Diviine Establishment Laws" for 400 years. They needed a foundation on which to build their new society on, or otherwise there would be tyranny in ANY national entity. They pertain to us today ONLY in the respect of the Laws of Divine Establishment and nothing more, which are for believers and unbelievers. Just REMember we are in the church age, and Grace has replaced the law, BUT when we are filled with the Spirit, we are fullfilling EVERY mandate of the Lord, including the law. Rermember it is Grace all the way. Gal. 3: {Note: The Mosaic Law is for all humanity - believer and unbeliever alike. If an unbelieving society adopts the 'laws for establishment' set up in the Mosaic Law, they will develop a strong society in which evangelism can thrive. In the Church Age, bible doctrine can only be understood under the ministry of the filling of God the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers can not understand doctrine until they are saved. And, believers can not grow spiritually without the use of rebound (I John 1:9) restoring fellowship and the filling of God the Holy Spirit.} 24~~ Wherefore the law became our 'paidagogos' which lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith/doctrine. {Note: A 'paidagogos' was a slave that took the children to school . . . an olden day 'school bus'. Coming up, we will see that until salvation we are minor children - hardly greater than slaves - at salvation we go through a change or 'adoption' and become 'adult sons' in union with Christ.} 25~~ But after that faith/doctrine is come we are no longer under a paidagog. {Note: Means we get off the bus! See the previous verse.} Rom. 3: 31~~Do we nullify/'make void' the {Mosaic} law through {that same} faith? Definitely not! {idiom: literally: 'Let it not (me) become so'! On the contrary, we establish {the true purpose of} the law. |