View Single Post
Old 10-05-2012, 14:46   #40
Senior Member
Schabesbert's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616

Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
What, then, did Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21?
I already quoted 9:20 above. Maybe you should review it.

1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law--not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ--that I might win those outside the law.

The New Testament makes clear that certain SACRIFICIAL laws are no longer binding today. Paul calls them "a tutor" in Galatians 3:24.
Can you point out support for this assertion?

Paul doesn't say "SACRIFICIAL laws" here. He says "the" law. Redefining terms whenever you want to is just special pleading.

We see, then, that the Ten Commandments -- the "LAW" --
See? If you keep re-defining the term that Paul used just to suit your own beliefs, then you aren't following scripture at all; you're just following your own beliefs. Or Fred's.

Therefore, when Paul was with Jews, he would not offend them by refusing to keep their customs. He would not keep those customs, of course, when he was with Gentiles, as these customs or ritualistic laws are no longer binding.
This shows explicitely that the dietary laws have been abrogated, since Paul ate with the gentiles.

Paul DID make clear, however, that he DID teach and keep the spiritual LAW of God (Romans 7:14) that IS still binding, including ALL of the Ten Commandments (Matthew 19:17-19).
Yep, in their spiritual sense, as per Christ's commandments (i.e., the sermon on the mount, etc.)

Notice how the "Nelson Study Bible" explains 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:

"Paul put his ministry of the gospel above his personal desires. He was willing to conform to the customs of other people, whether Jew or Gentile, in order to bring them to Christ. For example, in order to relate to the Jews in Jerusalem he made a Nazarite vow in the temple (Acts 21:23, 24). Around those who were under the Law -- the Jews -- Paul obeyed the Law. Around those who were outside the Law -- the Gentiles -- Paul did not observe JEWISH CUSTOM. Paul clarified this, however, lest anyone misunderstand his actions. He obeyed GOD'S LAW through obedience toward Christ."
Yep. Obedience toward Christ fulfills God's Law.

The New Bible Commentary concurs, referring to the ritualistic sacrificial law as the "Mosaic" law:

"Paul has surrendered more than his right to personal subsistence. Though he is free from all men, i.e. in no sense bound by the standards or fashions of others, he is prepared to make himself a slave to all, and conform to their standards or fashions, providing no real principle is at stake, in order to win as many as possible... So when among Jews he acts as a Jew, conforming to their customs under the Mosaic law (Acts 16:3; 18:18; 21:26), though as a Christian he himself is no longer obliged to keep that law (cf. Gal. 2:11-21). Similarly he is ready to identify himself with those who are not bound by the Jewish law, i.e. Gentiles; though he adds an important proviso. Gentiles not only disregard the Mosaic law [our comment: that part of the law of Moses that is ritual and no longer binding], but may also refuse to recognize any divine commandments [our comment: the Ten Commandments with its statutes and judgments -- including the Sabbath, the annual Holy Days, and the dietary and tithing laws]."
Who is it that is adding the "our comment" part that has no support from scripture?

And, read it without the "our comment" parts -- it doesn't support your theory.

Paul never taught others to sin, and he was careful that he did not sin, either. He would have never disobeyed God by breaking His law, only to "win" the Gentiles.

Finally, although he was not "under the law," he became as one "under the law," so that he might win those under the law. "And Lawlessness Will Abound..." the term "under the law" refers to its penalty.
Prove it.

When Paul says:
Ro 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

... by your twisted definition, then, we must be under the penalty of grace. Doesn't make sense? I agree.

Paul never taught that any of God's abiding laws could be broken. He taught, "It is the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath" (Hebrews 4:9; Lamsa translation).
What a lousy translation.
Is this a purposeful distortion, or just done out of ignorance?
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote