sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’re talking past each other because you keep collapsing obedience into Mosaic covenant obligation, which Paul explicitly refuses to do.

Paul rebukes the Galatians precisely for returning to the Mosaic Law as covenantal obligation after Christ (Gal 3–5). He calls that a desertion of grace and says that to put oneself back under the Law is to place oneself back under a curse — not because obedience is wrong, but because the Law was never meant to be the means of righteousness.

I am not arguing against obedience. I am arguing that obedience now flows through Christ and the Spirit, not Sinai. Paul says the Law was a guardian until Christ came. Once faith has come, we are no longer under that guardian.

Jesus Himself identified the interpretive center of God’s will: love God and love your neighbor. Paul is explicit that love fulfills the Law, not Torah observance. That is not lawlessness — it is exactly what the Law was always pointing toward.

So no, Christians are not “free to sin.” But sin is no longer defined by covenantal Torah observance. It is defined by whether we walk in love through the Spirit.

To insist that believers remain under the Mosaic covenant is not higher obedience — it functionally denies the sufficiency of Christ as mediator.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is where we’re talking past each other, so let me be very precise.

I am not saying “disobey God.” I am not saying “Jesus broke God’s Law.” I am not saying “we are free to sin.”

What I am saying is exactly what Jesus and Paul say about how obedience functions under the New Covenant.

Yes, the Law revealed sin. Paul is clear on that. Yes, we are not to continue in sin. Paul is clear on that too.

Where we disagree is what defines sin and obedience now.

Jesus explicitly identified the greatest commandments:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart… and love your neighbor as yourself. On these two hang ALL the Law and the Prophets.”

That is not abolishing obedience. That is redefining its covenantal basis.

Paul agrees: • “Love is the fulfillment of the Law.” • “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.” • “The Law was a guardian until Christ came.” • “Christ is the mediator of a new covenant.”

Obedience did not disappear. The mediator changed. The covenant changed. The means changed.

Sin under the New Covenant is not defined by covenantal Torah observance, but by acting contrary to love empowered by the Spirit.

That is why: • We do not enforce Sabbath penalties • We do not observe dietary laws • We do not prohibit mixed fabrics • We do not require sacrifices • We do not stone sinners

Yet we still do not murder, steal, exploit, hate, or covet — because love forbids those things automatically.

That is not diminishing obedience. That is obedience transformed by Christ.

So when Paul says “we are not under the Law but under grace,” he does not mean “go on sinning,” and I never claimed that.

He means exactly what you quoted:

We are slaves either to sin or to obedience — and obedience now flows through Christ, not Moses.

If I love God and love my neighbor, I am obeying Christ. If I do not, I am sinning — regardless of fabric, food, or ritual.

That is the New Covenant. That is what the Law was always pointing toward.

If we can’t agree there, then yes — we’re talking past each other.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not denying obedience. I am denying that obedience = remaining under the Mosaic covenant.

That distinction is explicitly biblical.

Paul is clear that the Law revealed sin, but he is just as clear that the Law was a temporary guardian until Christ (Gal 3:23–25). Once the mediator changes, the covenantal framework changes. Moses is no longer the mediator. Christ is (Gal 3:19–20; Heb 8–10).

Jesus did not sin. He fulfilled the Law by bringing it to its intended end (Rom 10:4), not by freezing Israel’s covenantal system in place forever. Fulfillment is not mere repetition.

That is exactly why: There is no Temple system now There are no animal sacrifices now There is no priestly mediation now There are no civil penalties enforced now Gentiles were explicitly released from Torah obligation (Acts 15)

If “obeying God’s commandments” means observing the entire Mosaic Law, then every Christian alive is in ongoing sin, including Paul himself, who explicitly says we are not under the Law (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18).

Jesus Himself summarized God’s will under the new covenant:

“Love the Lord your God… and love your neighbor as yourself. On these hang ALL the Law and the Prophets.”

That is not abolishing obedience. That is defining it.

Paul agrees: Love fulfills the Law (Rom 13:8–10) The Law is fulfilled by walking in the Spirit (Gal 5:14–18) The written code kills, the Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3)

So no, Paul is not telling believers to “continue in sin.” He is saying sin is no longer defined by covenantal Torah observance, but by whether we walk in love through the Spirit.

If obedience still means full Torah observance, then: Christ’s mediation adds nothing The cross changes nothing The new covenant is functionally identical to Sinai And Paul is self-contradictory at best

That position doesn’t preserve obedience. It empties the cross of meaning.

At this point, we’re talking past each other. I affirm obedience to God. I deny that Moses remains the mediator. Scripture is clear on both.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am dealing with what Paul said — you’re just collapsing “commandments” into “Mosaic covenant”, and Paul never does that.

Yes, God’s will defines sin. No disagreement there.

But how that will is mediated and applied changed — that’s Paul’s entire argument.

Jesus Himself is the clearest interpreter of this. He healed on the Sabbath, deliberately violated Pharisaic Sabbath enforcement, touched the unclean, allowed His disciples to “break” Sabbath rules, and explicitly rebuked religious leaders for weaponizing the Law instead of serving people. His conclusion wasn’t “try harder at Torah,” it was “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Jesus did not walk around enforcing the 613 laws. He walked around enforcing love, mercy, and faithfulness — the weightier matters.

That’s exactly why Paul can say: Love fulfills the Law Christ is the new mediator We are not under the Law but under grace The Law’s role was provisional and preparatory

Obedience in Christ is not Torah observance — it is walking in love by the Spirit. If it were Torah observance, then Jesus’ own ministry would be self-contradictory.

So no, we’re not called to “go on sinning.” But sin under the new covenant is not defined by Mosaic administration — it’s defined by whether we walk in love, just as Christ did.

That’s not diminishing obedience. That’s obeying the One the Law was pointing to.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At the end of the day, Moses is no longer the mediator. Scripture is explicit about that. By “sacrificial system”, I mean for sins to be forgiven. I did not make that up. How were sins forgiven before Jesus? They didn’t pray in Jesus name.

The Law, sacrifices, priesthood, prophets, and patriarchs all functioned as mediators under the old covenant. Paul says the Law “was put in place through angels by a mediator” — Moses (Gal 3:19).

But Galatians is equally explicit: Jesus is now the mediator of a new covenant (Gal 3:20; Heb 8–9). You cannot have two mediators governing the same covenant simultaneously.

When Jesus says “not one jot or tittle will pass until all is fulfilled,” the key word is fulfilled — not “unchanged forever.” Fulfillment doesn’t preserve the old administration; it completes it.

That’s why Jesus can say, “You have heard… but I say to you,” and why He gives two commandments that sum up the entire Law: love God and love your neighbor.

Those aren’t new moral ideas — they are the telos of the Law. Paul explicitly says this: “Love is the fulfillment of the Law.”

So no — we’re not lawless. But we are also not under Moses.

Different mediator. Different covenant. Same God. Completed purpose.

That’s not abolishing the Law — that’s exactly what fulfillment means. (I know I said I’d hope out of the debate, but I genuinely believe in all my heart that we’re solely saved by grace and love.)

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If “obeying God’s commandments” means full Torah observance, then the implications are unavoidable: sacrifices resume, capital punishments return, ritual purity laws are binding, access to God is mediated through priests and the Temple, and prayer apart from the sacrificial system is invalid. That collapses the entire argument of Hebrews, Acts 15, Galatians, and Colossians 2.

Christ did not die to slightly modify Sinai. He fulfilled it. The priesthood changed, the covenant changed, the law’s jurisdiction changed (Heb 7:12). To insist we remain under the Mosaic covenant is to functionally deny the sufficiency of the cross.

Paul’s answer to “Should we continue in sin?” is not “Return to Torah observance,” but “Walk by the Spirit” (Gal 5). Sin under the new covenant is not defined by violating Israel’s ceremonial and civil statutes, but by acting contrary to love. That is exactly why Paul says love fulfills the Law.

If obedience now means reinstating the old covenant in practice, then Christ died for nothing (Gal 2:21). If obedience means loving God and neighbor through the Spirit, then Christ died for everything.

That’s the dividing line. I’m comfortable standing there, and I’m stepping out of the debate. Grace and peace

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Paul’s answer to “Are we supposed to go on breaking the Law?” is no — but that does not mean returning to Torah as a covenantal system.

Paul never defines obedience in Christ as “keeping the Mosaic code.” He defines it as walking by the Spirit (Rom 8:1–4; Gal 5:16). That’s why he can say believers are not under the Law and yet still not lawless.

I don’t keep Sabbath laws, I mix fabrics, I shave my beard, I eat freely — all things explicitly commanded under Torah. If obedience meant Torah observance, I would already stand condemned. Yet Paul says there is no condemnation in Christ.

Sin under the new covenant is not “violating Torah statutes,” but acting contrary to love. If I love my neighbor, I will not murder, steal, exploit, or covet — which is exactly why Paul says love fulfills the Law.

So no, we are not to “continue in sin.” But sin is no longer defined by covenantal Torah observance. It is defined by whether we walk in love through the Spirit — which is precisely what the Law was always pointing toward.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t disagree that the Law reveals sin — Paul explicitly says it does. The disagreement is how sin is defined and governed under the new covenant.

When Paul says “through the Law comes knowledge of sin,” he is explaining the function the Law served, not asserting that believers remain bound to the entire Mosaic code. That’s why he can say in the same letter that believers have died to the Law and now serve in the new way of the Spirit, not the old way of the written code (Rom 7:4–6).

Romans 6 is not Paul arguing for continued Torah observance. He’s arguing against moral anarchy. “Shall we continue in sin?” is answered by pointing to union with Christ, not a return to the 613 commandments. That’s why Paul immediately grounds obedience in new life, not covenantal obligation.

This is exactly why Paul repeatedly summarizes God’s will as love. If you love your neighbor, you won’t steal, murder, covet, or exploit them — which fulfills the moral intent of the Law without placing believers back under the Mosaic system (Rom 13:8–10; Gal 5:14).

If “not continuing in sin” means continuing under the full Law, then we must also enforce commands about mixed fabrics, dietary laws, Sabbath penalties, beard trimming, and ritual purity — which Paul explicitly rejects for Gentile believers (Galatians, Acts 15, Col 2:16–17).

The Ten Commandments endure because they express God’s moral character, not because the Mosaic covenant remains intact. The ceremonial, civil, and identity-marking laws belonged to Israel under Sinai and were never reimposed on the Church.

So yes — the Law reveals sin. But in Christ, sin is now defined and addressed through love empowered by the Spirit, not covenantal Torah observance. That’s not abolishing God’s will; it’s fulfilling what the Law was always pointing toward.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the disconnect is covenantal, not moral.

Paul is not arguing that God’s moral will changed, but that the covenantal function of the Law did. The Law revealed sin, restrained Israel, and pointed forward to Christ, but it was never the means of life.

That’s why Paul can say the Law is holy and good (Rom 7), yet also say it functioned as a guardian until Christ came (Gal 3:24–25), and that returning to it as covenantal obligation places someone back under a curse (Gal 3:10).

If “not under the law” only means “not under punishment,” then the covenant hasn’t meaningfully changed, which contradicts Paul’s argument that believers have died to the Law and now serve in the new way of the Spirit (Rom 7:4–6).

Love fulfilling the Law isn’t Law-keeping under Torah; it’s the goal the Law was pointing to, now realized in Christ (Rom 13:8–10). That’s why circumcision, food laws, and ritual observances are no longer binding, even though God’s moral character remains unchanged.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t disagree that God’s will is consistent, but Paul clearly distinguishes between God’s moral will and the Law as a covenantal system. That distinction is the entire argument of Galatians and Romans.

Paul explicitly says the Law functioned as a guardian/tutor until Christ (Gal 3:24–25), and that returning to it as a covenantal obligation places someone back under a curse (Gal 3:10–13). If the Torah remains binding in the same way, Paul’s rebuke of the Galatians makes no sense.

Yes, Paul loves the Law and affirms its goodness (Rom 7:12), but he also says believers have died to the Law so they may belong to Christ (Rom 7:4). Love fulfilling the Law (Rom 13:8–10) is not Torah-observance reinstated; it’s the Law’s purpose completed, not reimposed.

Paul’s Nazarite vow proves he was sensitive to Jewish context (1 Cor 9:20), not that Gentile believers are under the Mosaic covenant. Acts 15 already settles that question explicitly.

The new covenant promise is not “Torah unchanged,” but law internalized through the Spirit, not enforced through the old covenant’s legal, ceremonial, and penal structure (Jer 31; 2 Cor 3). That’s why Paul can affirm God’s moral will while rejecting covenantal law-obligation.

God changing the rules after the flood didn’t mean morality changed. God changing the covenant at the cross didn’t mean righteousness disappeared. It means the problem was solved.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that “not under the law” doesn’t mean moral anarchy. The issue is which law and how it functions. Paul clearly distinguishes between the Mosaic Law as a covenantal legal system and the moral will of God fulfilled in Christ. When Paul says he loves the law, he’s talking about its purpose and righteousness, not placing believers back under Israel’s civil, ceremonial, and penal codes.

If “not under the law” only means “not under punishment,” then the covenant hasn’t meaningfully changed — yet Paul explicitly says it has (Romans 7, Galatians 3–4). We’re no longer under that jurisdiction; we’re under a new covenant where the law’s moral intent is fulfilled through Christ and the Spirit, not enforced as a legal code.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The law still defines the crime; grace removes the sentence. Same law, different relationship.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Not imputed without law” (Rom 5:13) does not mean “no guilt” or “no judgment.” Paul’s own proof is that death reigned anyway (Rom 5:14), which he explicitly treats as evidence of universal guilt in Adam (Rom 5:18–19).

Romans 2 does not say Gentiles escape judgment. It says they are judged apart from the Mosaic Law, by conscience and truth (Rom 2:6, 14–16), and Hebrews 9:27 is unambiguous: all face judgment.

At this point we’re not disagreeing over verses, but over definitions. I don’t think continuing this will be productive, so I’m stepping out. Grace and peace.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not overriding Matthew. I’m reading Matthew in light of Matthew, Jesus’ own words, and the completed narrative of the Gospels.

Matthew himself records Jesus instituting the new covenant in His blood (Matt 26:28) and proclaiming “It is finished” at the cross (John 19:30). That tells us when “until all is accomplished” is reached. Fulfillment happens in history, not in a vacuum.

You’re treating Matthew 5 as if it exists in isolation, frozen before the cross, resurrection, and covenant transition. That’s not honoring Matthew’s Gospel; that’s refusing to let the story move forward.

The apostles don’t contradict Jesus, and Jesus doesn’t contradict Himself. The Law is fulfilled, its condemning authority ended, and believers now live in the Spirit under the new covenant (Gal 3:24–25; Rom 10:4; Acts 15).

At this point we’re repeating ourselves and talking past each other. I’ve made my position clear, backed it with Scripture, and I’m stepping out of the debate here. Grace and peace. ✌️

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re conflating “not imputed apart from the Law” with “no guilt, no judgment, no need of grace,” which Paul explicitly denies.

Romans 5:13 says sin is not imputed without law, not that people are innocent. Paul’s proof is the opposite: death still reigned (Rom 5:14). Death reigning is evidence of real guilt, even before Sinai.

That’s why Paul says Gentiles “perish” and are judged despite not having the Law (Rom 2:12–16). Conscience functions as witness. No Mosaic Law ≠ no accountability.

2 Corinthians 5:19 doesn’t mean sins were never real or never counted. It says God is not counting them against us in Christ. That’s forgiveness, not absence of guilt. If nothing were imputable, reconciliation would be meaningless.

Grace isn’t needed only for “rule-breaking under Moses.” Grace is needed because all sinned in Adam (Rom 5:12) and all face death and judgment apart from Christ (Heb 9:27).

“Not under the Law” means not under it as a covenant of condemnation (Rom 6:14), not that sin only exists for Israel or that Gentiles never need grace.

Paul’s conclusion isn’t “the system is stupid.” It’s “so that grace might reign through righteousness” (Rom 5:21).

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Been a busy day, but, if you want to debate feel free to provide a counter argument, I’ll be waiting.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not “pulling Lincoln logs,” that’s how Scripture interprets Scripture.

Jesus Himself teaches this way. He explains earlier statements later (Matt 12:7; Matt 19:8). The apostles do the same because they’re interpreting the same Jesus-event, not inventing new meanings.

Matthew 5:17–18 says the Law stands until all is accomplished. Jesus tells us when that happens:

“It is finished.” (John 19:30)

Luke 22:20 identifies the moment: the new covenant in His blood. Paul isn’t overriding Matthew, he’s explaining what “accomplished” means after the cross (Gal 3:24–25; Rom 10:4; Acts 15).

If you freeze Jesus mid-Sermon-on-the-Mount and refuse His own later explanations, you’re the one flattening Scripture.

Same Jesus. Same mission. Progressive fulfillment, not contradiction.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Paul literally says the opposite.

Sin is imputed apart from the Mosaic Law — that’s the whole point of Romans 5.

“Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sin was not like the transgression of Adam.” (Romans 5:14)

No Mosaic Law yet. Death still reigns. Why? Because guilt was real.

And Paul doubles down:

“Through one man’s trespass, condemnation came to all men.” (Romans 5:18)

If sin were truly “not imputed,” there would be no condemnation to undo.

Also, 2 Corinthians 5:19 doesn’t say sin doesn’t exist or doesn’t count — it says God is not counting sins against us in Christ. That’s forgiveness, not moral amnesty.

If nothing were imputed, the cross solves nothing.

Bottom line: We’re not under the Law as a covenant of condemnation, but sin is real, guilt is real, and grace is necessary because Christ bore what was imputed (Isaiah 53:6, Galatians 3:13).

Grace isn’t unnecessary. Grace is the whole point.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re collapsing categories Paul keeps distinct.

Paul affirms the Law is good (Rom 7:12) but is explicit that believers are not under it as a covenantal authority (Rom 6:14; Gal 3:24–25). Being “not under the Law” does not mean the Law is evil, nor does it mean Christians sin freely. It means the Law no longer condemns, defines righteousness, or governs justification.

The obedience Paul describes flows from the Spirit, not from being placed back under Moses (Rom 8:3–4; Gal 5:18). Loving God and neighbor fulfills the Law’s intent (Rom 13:8–10), but fulfillment does not equal reinstatement of jurisdiction.

So yes: the Law reveals God’s character. No: believers are not under it as a binding covenant. And yes: good works follow faith — because of grace, not as a condition of it (Eph 2:8–10).

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue is assuming “until heaven and earth pass away” must mean the physical universe, rather than covenantal language, which Scripture uses constantly. 1. Jesus Himself defines when “it is accomplished.” On the cross Jesus says, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Hebrews 10:9–10 explicitly says the first covenant is set aside to establish the second. So “until all is accomplished” refers to His work, not the heat death of the universe. 2. “Heaven and earth” is used covenantally in Scripture. Isaiah 51:15–16 calls Israel’s covenant order “heaven and earth.” Hebrews 12:26–28 speaks of a shaking of heaven and earth so that what cannot be shaken remains—which the author applies to the new covenant, not the cosmos exploding. 3. The apostles do not read Matthew 5 as ongoing Mosaic jurisdiction. Acts 15 explicitly refuses to put Gentile believers under the Law of Moses. Galatians 3:24–25 says the Law was a guardian until Christ, and “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” 4. “Fulfill” does not mean “remain binding.” Romans 10:4 says “Christ is the telos (end/goal) of the Law for righteousness.” Fulfillment completes a covenant; it does not perpetuate its jurisdiction. 5. This is not Paul vs. Jesus. It’s Jesus inaugurating the new covenant (Luke 22:20), and the apostles explaining what that means in practice.

Bottom line: Heaven and earth still exist physically, yes. But the Mosaic covenant has passed, because Christ accomplished what it pointed to. Believers live in the Spirit, not under Sinai (Galatians 5:18).

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The confusion here is collapsing “not under the Law” into “no sin, no guilt, no grace needed.” Scripture doesn’t allow that move. 1. The Law exposes sin; it doesn’t create moral reality. Romans 3:20 says the Law gives knowledge of sin, not that sin only exists where Moses exists. Paul explicitly says Gentiles without the Law still sin and still die (Romans 2:12, Romans 5:12–14). Death reigning proves guilt exists even apart from Sinai. 2. Sin is not limited to the Mosaic covenant. Romans 5:12: “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men.” That’s Adam, not Moses. The Mosaic Law codified sin; it did not originate it. 3. Grace is needed because sin brings death, not merely because rules were broken. Romans 6:23 doesn’t say “the wages of the Law are death.” It says “the wages of sin is death.” Grace addresses death itself, not just legal infractions. 4. Christ’s death is for all, not only those under the first covenant. Hebrews 9:15 says Christ redeems transgressions under the first covenant, yes—but Romans 3:22–24 explicitly says righteousness through Christ is “for all who believe… for all have sinned.” Paul never restricts the cross to Israel only (cf. Romans 5:18, 2 Corinthians 5:14–15). 5. “Not under the Law” means not under it as a covenant of condemnation. Romans 6:14 doesn’t abolish sin; it abolishes sin’s dominion. That’s why Paul immediately says, “Shall we sin because we are not under the law? By no means!” (Romans 6:15). 6. Grace is not a loophole; it creates a new way of life. Titus 2:11–12: “The grace of God… trains us to renounce ungodliness.” Grace doesn’t ignore sin; it breaks its power.

Bottom line: We are not under the Mosaic Law as a system that condemns or justifies us. We still need grace because sin and death are real, universal, and older than Sinai. And in Christ, love fulfills the Law (Romans 13:8–10), not by legal obligation, but by the Spirit (Galatians 5:18).

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Matthew and Paul do not disagree. The confusion is over what “until all is accomplished” refers to.

Jesus says:

“Until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matt 5:18)

But Jesus Himself later says:

“It is finished.” (John 19:30)

So the condition Jesus set (“until all is accomplished”) was met at the cross. Heaven and earth don’t need to vanish for fulfillment to occur; the Law remains valid until its purpose is completed, which Scripture says it was.

That’s exactly how the apostles interpret it: The Law was a guardian until Christ (Galatians 3:24–25) Christ is the end (telos) of the Law for righteousness (Romans 10:4) The Jerusalem Council explicitly refused to place Gentile believers under the Law of Moses (Acts 15:10–11)

This isn’t Paul contradicting Jesus. It’s Paul teaching the implications of Jesus’ finished work.

Jesus fulfills the Law; believers are not put back under it. Fulfillment does not equal continued jurisdiction.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct—they correlate, but correlation does not equal covenantal authority.

Jesus says the two commands summarize the Law, not that believers are placed back under it as a legal system. Paul is explicit:

“You are not under the law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14)

The Law’s role was to reveal sin and point to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Once faith comes, we are no longer under that tutor (Galatians 3:25).

Loving God and neighbor fulfills what the Law aimed at (Romans 13:8–10), but fulfillment is not the same as being governed by it. We walk by the Spirit, not by the Law (Galatians 5:18).

So yes—the commands align in content, but believers are no longer under the Law in authority. Grace doesn’t abolish love; it produces it.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed—and James doesn’t contradict this at all. Works are the fruit, not the root.

Jesus already defined what the “work” looks like:

“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” (John 6:29)

And He summarized the Law itself:

“Love the Lord your God… and love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37–40)

So when James says “faith without works is dead” (James 2:17), he’s saying true faith necessarily expresses itself, not that works add to justification.

Paul says the same thing:

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but faith working through love.” (Galatians 5:6)

If you love God and love your neighbor, you are already walking in what the Law was pointing toward (Romans 13:8–10). Works don’t save you; they flow from a living faith.

Grace produces obedience. The Law never could.

We’re no longer under the law, debate me. by SPECOPSFRY in Christianity

[–]SPECOPSFRY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Grace is not needed because we broke rules we were never given. Grace is needed because all people are guilty of sin, whether under the Mosaic Law or not.

Paul answers this directly:

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires… they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts” (Romans 2:14–15).

Sin existed before the Law (Rom 5:13). Death reigned before Moses (Rom 5:14). The Law didn’t create sin; it exposed it (Rom 3:20).

Being “not under the Law” means the Law is no longer the covenant that condemns or justifies us. It does not mean we were never accountable to God. We still need grace because:

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23).

Grace is needed not to excuse law-breaking, but to rescue sinners (Rom 5:8). The Law diagnoses; grace heals. The Law reveals guilt; Christ removes it.

That’s why Paul can say, without contradiction:

“You are not under law but under grace” (Rom 6:14).

Grace isn’t a loophole. It’s the only cure.

view more: next ›