5 Inconsistencies in Church Doctrine

When it comes to doctrine, a lot of what the Church teaches (at least concerning conservative and fundamentalist churches and ministries) is perfectly consistent with other teachings by the Church.  And many of these teachings I actually agree with, even if a lot of my posts do spend a lot of time criticizing the Church for a lot of its teachings.  But I've also found, over the years, many teachings that are inconsistent with other teachings.  We will take a look at five of these inconsistencies and look to Scripture for the resolution.  This list is in no particular order, and there will be overlaps!

1. Obedience to God's Commandments

Most mainstream ministries will teach that because we have Yeshua, there is no need to keep God's Law.  They will often label this the "Old Testament Law" to further cement this point.  However, there are many commandments within the Law of God that the Church expects you to keep.  For example, "do not lie", "do not commit adultery", "do not covet", and "do not worship idols".

One "resolution" to this inconsistency is to assert that we only need to keep the commands that were reiterated in the "New Testament".  But those who make such claims fail to realize that if the Law no longer needs to be kept, then whether they are reiterated in the "New Testament" is irrelevant.  This rationalization however, proves that they know that there is a need to keep at least some of God's Law.  Bit it is still inconsistent with the doctrine that we don't need to keep his Law.

Another rationalization is to divide the commandments within the Law into three laws:  The "moral" law.  The "civil" law.  And the "ceremonial" law.  The claim is that the "moral" law applies to everyone, the "civil" law applies only to the land of Israel, and the "ceremonial" law only applied before Yeshua's work on the cross and that it's this law that we don't need to keep.  But this too conflicts with the core teaching that the body of the Messiah does not need to keep the Law of God.

Some will say that we only need to keep the Ten Commandments.  But every Christmas they put up a nativity with an image of Jesus in direct violation of the Second Commandment, which forbids the creation of an image of anything, anywhere!  Whoever sets up an image of Jesus is worshiping the image, not Jesus.  They also change the Sabbath (Fourth Commandment) from the seventh day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday), which is literally named after the sun in the sky.  Whoever observes the first day of the week as the Sabbath worships a ball of plasma!  And changing God's Law is rebellion, not obedience!  And once again, if the Law is no longer needed, then neither are the Ten Commandments

In order to resolve the inconsistencies in the first two doctrines, the have made three additional teachings which also conflict with the first.  As I mentioned earlier, Christians know in their heart that that there are some laws that must be kept, proving false the doctrine that we don't need to keep God's Law.  So it's the heart and mind of man that testifies against this doctrine.  But we're going to look into Scripture to see for sure what we are supposed to do.  And just to prove the point, I will only use "New Testament" passages to prove just how false this doctrine really is.

Jesus himself said in Matthew 4:4 that man is to live on every word that comes from the mouth of God.  And in Matthew 5:17-20, he made such obedience mandatory for membership in God's Kingdom.  Note in verse 17 how "destroying the Law" and "fulfilling the Law" are framed as being mutually-exclusive.  If he didn't come to do away with it, then he must have come to teach it (I'm ignoring the Hebrew idiom here).  He also said in Matthew 19:17 that keeping the commandments is a requirement for "entering life".  And you can find numerous places where Jesus called-out the Pharisees for nullifying the Law of God for the sake of their traditions.  For example, Mark 7:5-13.  So according to Yeshua himself, we are to keep the Law of God.

What about Paul, whom the Church practically worships (funny how it's not Jesus who is treated as the ultimate authority of the Christian)?  In Romans 2:13, Paul says that it's those who keep the Law who will be justified before God.  In Romans 3:20 and 7:7, he says that the Law defines sin.  And in Romans 3:31, he states that we who believe in Jesus uphold the Law of God.  So much for Paul teaching against God's Law.

Let's see what James says.  In James 1:22-25, he says we should look into the perfect Law of liberty with the intent of obeying it.  And that if we do, we will be blessed in all that we do.  James 2:12 says we should act as if we will be judged by this law.  So James also teaches obedience to the Law.  Of course, if Jesus and the Apostles were teaching from the Law with the expectation for us to obey it, then we should expect to find many of the commandments being reiterated throughout the "New Testament".  And if the Law did not have to be followed (or should not be followed), then they would not be reiterating any of the commandments.

2. Biblical Inerrancy

One of the most blatant inconsistencies between two doctrines has to do with the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.  Which doctrine runs afoul of Biblical Inerrancy?  The doctrine that forbidding the consumption of certain meats (eg: pork) is a "doctrine of demons."  God's Law forbids us from eating pigs or even touching the dead bodies of pigs (Leviticus 11:7-8).  And Isaiah prophecies against such people in Isaiah 65:4 and 66:17, declaring that they will perish.  Yet because Paul wrote about those who forbid "certain foods" in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 (among other passages that are twisted by the Church), the Church insists that anyone who says we shouldn't eat pork (or other animals that God said to not eat) is teaching a doctrine of demons.

Think about it:  If the command not to eat certain animals is really a doctrine of demons, then it means that the Bible is in error about the origins of such commands, and the prophecies against those who break such commands.  If there is even one error in Scripture, then the Bible is by definition, not inerrant, and the inerrancy doctrine is therefore wrong.

On a related note, if 1 Timothy 4:1-5 means what the Church claims, then Paul is going against his own teachings that we should keep the Law of God.  We already went over this in the previous section.  It would also mean that if the Law and the Prophets are correct about the origin of the commandment and prophecies against those who break it, then Paul is the one who is wrong, and the Bible is not inerrant.  And if Paul is teaching both obedience to the Law and rebellion against it, one of those teachings is wrong by definition and the Bible is also not inerrant.  And it also lends credence to those who claim that Paul was a deceiver.  And if Paul was a deceiver, then the Bible is definitely not inerrant.

Peter warns us in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul is hard to understand, and that uneducated people twist his words to their own destruction.  So the solution is an interpretation that is hard to see just by reading the passage, but is consistent with Paul's teaching of obedience to God's Law.  We'll start with the definition of "food".  Since Paul taught obedience to the Law of God and the Law of God tells us what is and is not food for us, the definition of food that Paul (and the other Apostles, and Jesus) is using is that which God's Law defines as food.  And guess what:  The Law explicitly states that pigs are not food.

Now that we know the definition of food that Paul is using, we can see that the "creatures of God" refers to the clean animals that God gave for us as food.  Although God made all animals, both the clean and the unclean, only the clean animals are referred to here as the "creatures of God".  Finally, we see that these animals are set apart by the word of God and by prayer.  If everything is set apart, then nothing is set apart.  The words "sanctified" and "holy" lose all of their meaning if everything is said to be set apart.  And the word of God (which is referring specifically to God's Law in this instance) did not set apart pigs as food.  What Paul is actually teaching against are teachings about food that are contrary to God's Law.

3. The Shame of Nakedness

I've covered the topic of nakedness a lot on this blog.  And a search through my posts will reveal that quite quickly.  But what about the shame of nakedness?  The Church teaches that before there was sin, there was no shame in being naked.  In fact, we read in Genesis 1 and 2 that mankind was designed to always be naked and that this nakedness was very good.  But in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve sinned, became ashamed of their nakedness, and after they failed to provide adequate clothing for themselves, God himself provided them with clothing.  The Church teaches that ever since then, there has been a universal shame of nakedness.  So where's the inconsistency:  Well, Jesus took away our sins by his blood, wiping-out the record of our transgressions.  Since our sins have been taken away, so has the source of our shame of being naked.  And the Bible says in numerous places that those who believe in him shall by no means be put to shame (1 Peter 2:6).  And in Romans 8:35, Paul says that nakedness is incapable of keeping us from God's love.

While I have been teaching for a long time on this blog that there is no requirement in Scripture to be clothed (except for the priests when they are performing their duties), I still didn't realize the inconsistency about the shame of nakedness before finding this article on the topic, which also inspired me to write this post on 5 of the Church's doctrinal inconsistencies.  If sin truly is the only source of the shame of nakedness as the Church teaches it is, then those who have had their sins taken away should not be ashamed of such a thing.  But the Church still teaches us to be ashamed of being naked because of sin.  The very sin that the Church rightly says is taken away by the blood of Jesus just by believing in him!  In my post on Genesis 3, I proved that it was the serpent who told Adam and Eve that they were naked.  That, by extension, means that the source of the shame of nakedness came from the serpent, not from the sin that they had just committed.

Just like with the first inconsistency I pointed-out, for this one, I'm only going to use the "New Testament" to expose the magnitude of this inconsistency.  And I'm also going to do it using the view that sin is the only source of the shame of nakedness.

When Yeshua came to Jerusalem on a donkey, many in the crowd took off their garments and laid them on the road before Jesus.  This is recorded in Matthew 21:8, Mark 11:7 (the Disciples put their garments on the donkey for Jesus to sit on), and Mark 11:8.  Many of these only had a single garment, yet took it off for Jesus, and Jesus accepted it.  This of course, is perfectly consistent with the teaching that the shame of nakedness comes from sin, because they were not actively sinning when they greeted their Savior and our Savior at the gates of Jerusalem.

In John 13:4, Jesus himself set aside his garments in front of the Twelve and proceeded to wash the feet of his Disciples.  This too is consistent with the doctrine that sin is the source of the shame of nakedness because Jesus never sinned and therefore had nothing to bring him shame.

In John 21:7 (after the resurrection of the Lord), Peter is fishing with his friends naked (go read the context).  This was actually common place back then, for a laborer to work without clothing.  And this may have also been the reason why Mary mistook Jesus for the gardener in John 20:15, for Yeshua left all of his grave clothes behind when he rose from the dead (Luke 24:12, John 20:6-7).  This of course is perfectly consistent with the doctrine that sin is the source of the shame of nakedness.

4. Avoiding Salvation by Works

It is often said that anyone who keeps God's Law is by definition, trying to work for his or her salvation.  And whoever teaches obedience to God's Law is by definition, teaching works-based salvation.  For some reason, the Church absolutely hates the idea of keeping God's Law and actively teaches that such things are not only not necessary, but also evil.  Now this overlaps with the first inconsistency listed in this post, because the Church actually teaches obedience to some of the commandments in God's Law (chiefly, the Ten Commandments) along with most, if not all, of Leviticus 18, among some other commands also found in God's Law.

Interestingly enough, nobody says that obedience to Yeshua's commandments is salvation by works, even though his commandments seem more difficult to keep than the Law of God.  For example, as pointed-out in my post on what Jesus meant by "but I say", Jesus linked coveting your neighbor's wife with committing adultery with her.  He also linked bearing a grudge against your neighbor with committing murder.

Now, when writing this post, I realized I made a mistake on the post I just linked.  I accidentally wrote:

So according to Jesus himself, anyone who nullifies the Law of God is guilty of sin.  This means that it can't be that Jesus is nullifying Deuteronomy 24:1 by forbidding adultery.

But I meant to say this:

So according to Jesus himself, anyone who nullifies the Law of God is guilty of sin.  This means that it can't be that Jesus is nullifying Deuteronomy 24:1 by forbidding divorce.

I'm going to be leaving that mistake in because I have a policy that once a blog post is published, it does not get any edits done to it for any reason.

Speaking of divorce:  As mentioned in that post right after the mistake, I mentioned that the intent of Deuteronomy 24:1 is being ignored.  The intent of the verse is to give provision to terminate a marriage in very specific situations (eg: a woman hiding any premarital indiscretions from her husband).  The Pharisees twisted it to allow for divorce for any reason.

So not only is Jesus teaching obedience to the Law, he's linking commandments together that are usually considered separately, making the Law harder to follow simply by keeping Jesus's commands.  But Jesus didn't make the Law harder to follow.  He simply exposed the intent of the Law and gave the correct interpretation of the Law, which is harder to follow simply because of human nature.  So if keeping our flawed understanding of God's Law is "salvation by works", then so is keeping Yeshua's commands.

But how exactly do with solve this inconsistency of obedience being salvation by works?  Simple:  There is absolutely zero Biblical support for the assertion that obedience to the Law of God is by definition, works-based salvation.  None!  In fact, those who make such assertions prove that they do not know God, and are lying when they claim to know him (1 John 2:3-4).  The Bible also says that keeping God's Law is by definition, loving God (1 John 5:2-3).  There's also the passages referenced for inconsistency #1.  And James 2:14-26 explains in detail how faith is made complete by our works and how works prove our faith.  It also refutes the "faith alone" doctrine, which is used to justify rebellion against God.  So we keep God's commands because we love God, not to somehow earn our salvation.  And this keeping of God's Law proves our faith.

5. To Sin or Not to Sin

One common objection to the teaching that Christians should keep God's Law is that we allegedly cannot keep it, so we shouldn't even try.  This overlaps with inconsistencies 1 and 4 quite a bit.  You might have heard the phrase, "you will sin every day in thought or deed", which I covered in a previous post.  Often, this saying will have a context that implies, "you're going to sin anyways, so don't even try to not sin".  These same people will also rightfully say that we should not lie, steal, murder, or commit adultery, for example.  Other examples of things that they will tell us not to do include "lusting" after a woman, becoming drunk, or judging others.  In some cases, they have many additional rules in place to try to avoid sinning, which are themselves considered sinful to break.

On one hand, they teach that we shouldn't try not to sin, because will will sin anyways, or because trying not to sin is "salvation by works".  And on the other hand, not only say that we should not sin, but that we should any situation where we could potentially sin at all costs.  But what does the Bible say?

Jesus said "sin no more" [John 5:14] and Paul said "do not sin" [1 Corinthians 15:34].  In John 9:21, we read that God does not listen to the sinner.  That explains the lack of healings in the Church.  And in Romans 6, we are told not to allow sin to have any power over us because we have been freed from sin.  In fact, he states that sin does not have any power over those who believe in the Lord Yeshua.  And 1 John 5:8 says that whoever is born of God does not sin.  Now who is it that says "you will sin every day in thought or deed"?  Oh right, the one who's mind is driven by the flesh instead of the spirit.  Such a person is unable to submit to God's commandments [Romans 8:7].  And that explains why conservative Christians have so many heretical rules to try to avoid sin.  They're treating the symptom instead of the cause.  The one who is delivered from will naturally keep God's Law and be able to avoid sinning.  And even when such a person does stumble (which is contrary to that person's nature), that person has an advocate with the Father [1 John 2:1].

Misunderstanding the Doctrine of Obedience

Have you ever heard the claim that "obedience to God's Law is by definition, salvation by works"?  Well, that's a lie!  According to Deuteronomy 13, those that love Yahweh obey his Law.  And those that rebel against his Law by definition, practice idolatry!  Is it possible that someone will keep Yahweh's Law as a means of salvation?  Yes.  But there are other reasons to keep the Law of Yahweh.  For example, to prove that you love Yahweh.  Or to prove that they believe in Yeshua.  Yeshua said that those who love him will keep his commandments (John 14:21).  And Yeshua commanded us to live on every word of Yahweh (Matthew 4:4).  You are not living on every word of Yahweh if you are rebelling against his Law!

This misunderstanding concerning obedience is understandable.  Simply put, the teaching that, "one cannot be saved so long is one is living in rebellion", can be easily misinterpreted as saying that it's the obedience that saves you, rather than faith in Yeshua.  For example, Hebrews 10:26 makes it clear that those living in rebellion have no atonement.  But it is also clear from other passages, such as Romans 3:19-20, make it clear that, even if one were to stop rebelling against Yahweh's Law, they would still not be saved!  And Yeshua said, "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men [Matthew 12:31; NKJV]."  So the one who stops their rebellion will be forgiven of their rebellion.

While this may look like salvation by works, it's not.  It only looks that way because living in rebellion will prevent you from being saved.  If someone stops rebelling against Yahweh's commandments, that does not automatically mean they are saved.  It just means they can be saved.  Salvation still comes from believing in Yeshua.  All this can be summed-up by the following saying:  "Obedience cannot save you, but rebellion will condemn you."  You might have also heard this saying:  "We do not keep the Law to be saved.  We keep the Law because we're saved."

There are some things that need to be addressed.  The ultimate reason that this misunderstanding exists is because Satan wants to keep us away from Yahweh.  And he does that by deceiving us into believing that the Law is bad, and that keeping it is bad.  Yeshua warned against this tactic when he said, "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.  And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men [Matthew 15:8-9; NKJV]."  Their hearts are far from Yahweh because they do not keep his commandments.  So now you know that drawing close to Yahweh starts with keeping his Law.

There are of course human motivations for believing that obedience is salvation by works:  People do not like change!  They want to continue in their ways and their hearts deceive them into making excuses for continuing in what they now know is sinful.  This is an excellent example of the mind being governed by the flesh not being able to submit to Yahweh's Law, as Paul warned about in Romans 8:7.  For teachers, there is even more motivation to teach this:  Money and/or power!  Or rather, the love of money and/or power.  People generally have itching ears and will not tolerate anyone who does not tell them exactly what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4)!  And guess what:  You can't maintain a Church building if nobody is there to give their "tithe" to the Church.  Then there are the wolves!  These teachers know the truth, and teach the opposite.  It is their job to make sure that you perish in the Lake of Fire!  By the way, the more people realize that God expects us to keep his Law, the more wolves will make themselves known.

What Does Believing Moses Really Mean?

A common (and 100% correct) argument used to refute theistic evolution is the fact that those who don't believe Moses will not believe Jesus.  When Young Earth Creationists (which I am one) make this argument, they are quoting Jesus directly, from John 5:46.  Again, this is 100% correct, but not just for the reasons that creationists give.

Most of the time, when a creationist invokes John 5:46, they're talking exclusively about believing what Moses wrote concerning the origin of everything.  And while they are right that you need to believe what Moses wrote concerning the origin of everything in order to believe Jesus, where they go wrong is the exclusion of the rest of what Moses wrote.

Some will point to Genesis 3:14-15 as being where Moses wrote about Jesus.  This is indeed a prophesy about Jesus written by Moses, but there is so much more that Moses wrote than a single prophesy in a single book.  In fact, Genesis as a whole is a mirror image of the Messiah (both literally and figuratively).  The literal part because of the fact that Hebrew scrolls are striped (to guide the scribes on where to write) and pierced (to bind the different scroll pieces together to make a single scroll) just as Jesus was striped (by whips) and pierced (by thorns and nails).  The figurative part because many of the lives of those who are recorded in Torah mirror the life of Jesus.

Here are some examples of people who's lives mirrored that of Jesus:

• Noah's Ark saving Noah and his family, and two of every kind of animal from God's judgement is a mirror of Jesus saving us from God's coming judgement.
• Noah's Ark being the only means of salvation from God's judgement is a mirror of Jesus being the only means of salvation from God's coming judgement.
• Isaac being born by the Spirit of God is a mirror of Jesus also being born by the Spirit of God.
• Isaac nearly being sacrificed is a mirror of Jesus actually being sacrificed.
• Joseph being betrayed by his brothers is a mirror of Jesus being betrayed by a close friend.
• God using the treason against Joseph to save the world is a mirror of God using the treason against Jesus to save the world.
• Joseph is never recorded to have sinned even once, mirroring Jesus never sinning once.

In addition to that, many of the things which are found in Moses' writings point directly to Jesus, including:

• Jesus is the Passover Lamb that caused God's wrath to pass over us (the Passover meal).
• Jesus is the Unleavened Bread, leaven representing sin (Feast of Unleavened Bread).
• Jesus is the First Fruits from the dead (Feast of First Fruits).
• Jesus is the Sabbath (seventh day) rest.
• Jesus is the Atonement for our sins (Day of Atonement).

There is quite a bit more in Torah that points directly to Jesus than what I've listed here.  Go search for yourself!  As you can see from this sample, Genesis is only a small part of what it means to "believe Moses".  If you believe Moses concerning Genesis, but not the rest of what he wrote, then you really don't believe him.  For nearly everything recorded in Torah is a picture of Jesus our Lord and savior!  In fact, according to the biblical definition of faith, merely believing what Moses said is not good enough.  You must also obey him!

Again, believing Moses about Genesis, but not the rest of what he wrote is not believing Moses.  Believing Moses only starts with believing Genesis.  And believing all of what Moses wrote without obeying him is also not believing Moses.  For Moses told us how to live holy (set apart) lives dedicated to God.  Obeying him shows that you believe he was truthful concerning holiness, while disobedience shows that you believe he was mistaking or lying about holiness.  And Jesus obeyed Moses!  Isn't it interesting that those who do not obey Moses (who wrote exactly what God commanded him to write [Exodus 24:4]) also do not obey Jesus?  And that those who cherry-pick Moses' teachings also cherry-pick Jesus' teachings?

Proving Paul is a True Apostle [Part 2]

In Part 1, we examined a significant portion of the book of Romans to prove that Paul is a true apostle of Jesus the Messiah.  I planned on going through more of the book (if not finishing it) in part 2, but I realized I missed something in part one.  So we're going to start this off by addressing what we missed in the last post.

Here is the relevant passage.  Romans 3:9-20.

9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;

11     there is no one who understands;

    there is no one who seeks God.

12 All have turned away,

    they have together become worthless;

there is no one who does good,

    not even one.”

13 “Their throats are open graves;

    their tongues practice deceit.”

“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”

14     “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”

15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;

16     ruin and misery mark their ways,

17 and the way of peace they do not know.”

18     “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. [NIV]

The charge here is that Paul is taking Scripture out of context and twisting it to say what he wants it to say.  They contend that Psalm 14:1 (which Paul quotes in Romans 3:10-12) says that there's nobody among fools that does good.  However, Paul is not quoting just one verse here, but multiple verses.  The next two (Psalm 14:2-3) makes it clear that there is nobody among all mankind that does good.  We see the same pattern in Psalm 53.  And Ecclesiastes 7:20 (one of the many verses Paul quotes in this passage) also makes it clear that nobody is righteous.  And the definition of righteous that is used in that verse requires the person to never sin once.  Ironically, it's those making the charge against Paul who are taking Scripture out of context.

There may be other places I've missed or will miss, but we'll address those when I realize I've missed them or when they're pointed out to me.  In the mean time, let's continue where we left off from part 1:  Romans 8.  Here, we are introduced to two new laws:  The "law of the Spirit" and the "law of sin and death".  In addition to that, we have the law of God, which is referred simply as "the Law".  So we see that there are at least three laws at play here.  In verse 7, Paul states that he is referring to God's Law when he says, "The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so."  What does that tell you about those who say "God's Law is a burden" or "God's Law is too difficult"?

So, let's go back to Romans 6 and 7, and see if chapter 8 can help us understand these passages which imply that God's Law is the problem or that we've been set from from it.  Paul states that we have died to sin (6:2) and have been set free from sin (6:7).  He also said that sin shall no longer be our master because we are not under the law, but under grace (6:14).  So if being set free from sin means we are no longer "under the law", then which law is Paul referring to?  Wouldn't it be the law of sin and death mentioned in Romans 8:2?  Also, if the answer is no, then does Paul define what it means to be "under the Law" when "the Law" refers to God's Law?  Perhaps.  In Galatians 3:10, Paul quotes God's Law when he says that those who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse.  Why are they under a curse?  Because the Law says, "Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out." [Deuteronomy 27:26; NIV]  So, if being "under the Law" is referring to God's Law, then it means being under the curse of the Law because you have broken the Law.  Again, it is not those who keep the Law who are cursed, but those who break the Law who are cursed.

Continuing on, Paul says we used to be slaves to sin (6:17), but have since been set free from sin and are now slaves to righteousness (6:18).  And that we should now offer ourselves as slaves to righteousness just as we used to offer ourselves as slaves to ever-increasing wickedness (6:19).  And we have been set free from sin, and are now slaves to God (6:22).  In Romans 7:1-3, Paul uses the marriage Law as an analogy to what has happened to us, then says we have died to the Law (7:4), have died to that which once bound us (7:5) and have been released from the law (7:6).  Which Law have we been released from?  The law of sin an death!  The marriage law represents the law of sin and death that we were bound to before we came to repentance and faith in Jesus.  By the way, in Romans 7:23, Paul specifies that it is the law of sin working against the Law of God.  And the next two verses, states that it was through Jesus the Messiah that he was delivered from the law of sin.  So we were introduced to the law of sin here.  And it is this law that we are no longer under.

Proving Paul is a True Apostle [Part 1]

So, in a previous post, I exposed the rather lacking attempts that the Church makes to defend Paul and explained why they cannot provide an adequate defense of the Apostle.  In this post (which will probably be a multi-part series), I'll be proving that Paul is a legitimate Apostle of our Lord, Jesus the Messiah.  We're going to be starting in the book of Romans since much of the accusations against Paul are the result of misunderstanding what Paul wrote in his epistles.  First, we need to lay a few rules about how we are testing Paul to determine his legitimacy.

1. Any command that he gives that he credits to God must come from God's Law.  Same for any command that he credits to Jesus.  For he is not allowed to add to or diminish from God's commandments [Deuteronomy 12:32].
2. Teaching people that they do not have to keep God's Law is the same as teaching people to follow after other gods.  See the Deuteronomy 13 Test for why this is.

With that out of the way, let's get started with Romans Chapter 2.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. [Romans 2:12-16; NIV]

In the above passage, Paul makes it abundantly-clear that only those who keep the Law will be declared righteous (verse 13).  And in verses 14 and 15, Paul explains that the one who does what is required by God's Law, even though they do not have the written Law, shows that they have his Law written on their heart.  By the way, Jeremiah 31:31-34 is a promise by God to make a new covenant with his people where he will write his Law on their hearts.  The Law being on our hearts is nothing new.  Deuteronomy 26:16 commands us to keep the Law with all our hearts.  That is, keeping God's Law should come naturally to us.

25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. [Romans 2:25-27; NIV]

There is definitely a lot of confusion on the topic of circumcision.  Some use the above passage as proof that circumcision is bad.  But those we are addressing in this post use this passage as proof that Paul was a deceiver.  But notice what Paul said about the one who keeps the Law, yet is not circumcised.  If God's Law requires all to be circumcised, then how can somebody obey the Law without being circumcised?  Hint:  It does not require all to be circumcised; only the descendants of Israel and those who want to eat the Passover.

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. [Romans 3:19-20; NIV]

This passage should be pretty self-explanatory.  The Law tells us what sin is, and it is because of the Law that the whole world will be held accountable to God on Judgement Day.  This is one of many passages that are used as proof that keeping the Law is a bad thing.  But the logic behind this is what's known as a non-sequitor.  It does not follow that because the Law makes us aware of our sin, that we therefore should not keep the Law.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Since the Law tells us what sin is, we should be making every effort to keep the Law.  And remember Romans 2:13:  Only those who keep the Law will be declared righteous.

Romans 3:21-26 is Paul explaining that righteousness comes from believing in Jesus.  This does not mean that one can break the Law and still be righteous.  It means that those who believe have been forgiven of their transgressions through the blood of Jesus.  Forgiveness means God no longer counts the times you have transgressed his Law against you, and are therefore, righteous in his sight.  Oh, and if anyone gets any ideas after stopping at verse 30:  You stopped one verse too soon!  Those who have faith keep God's Law!  Now even if he didn't explicitly say that, think:  How much sense does it make to define righteousness as keeping God's Law, then teach us not to keep the Law?  Does it make any sense for someone to say, "righteousness is keeping God's Law, therefore do not keep God's Law"?  Of course not.

Starting in Romans 3:21, Paul is teaching that righteousness is by faith apart from the works of the Law.  And in Romans 4:3, Paul quotes the historical account in Genesis 15 to prove his point.  This is because Genesis 15:6 states "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness. [NIV]"  Many assume that Paul is teaching something called "faith alone", which James had some choice words concerning such doctrines.  The only time the phrase "faith alone" appears in the Bible is when James speaks against it.  It never appears anywhere else.  Faith alone is the doctrine that since our righteousness is by faith apart from the works of the Law, that our works have absolutely no bearing on our righteousness.  And those who teach it will say that if you teach otherwise, then you are, by definition, teaching a "salvation by works".  Never-mind the fact that only those who keep the Law can be declared righteous in God's sight (Romans 2:13).  In Jame's rebuke of such heresy, he quotes from the exact same verse to prove that Abraham's deeds came from his faith.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Romans 5:20-21; NIV]

Here's another verse that I've seen used to try to prove that Paul spoke against the Law.  There's just one tiny little detail:

6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? [Romans 6:1-2]

Yup!  They stopped too soon again. Speaking of which, chapters 6 and 7 is where Paul starts his teaching on slavery to sin vs slavery to righteousness; being dead to sin, but alive to God.  Take to heart Peter's warning, and read carefully the whole passage before jumping to conclusions about what Paul did or did not teach.  Because a lot of the misunderstandings about what Paul taught are from forming whole doctrines around one or two verses without taking the context into consideration.  By doing this, one will draw a conclusion that is the exact opposite of Paul's teachings.  This is on top of the fact that Paul is still difficult to understand, per Peter's warning.

Read Romans 6 very carefully.  And notice how Paul is teaching that we have died to sin, and therefore are no longer slaves to sin, having been set free from it.  And that we are to offer ourselves as instruments of righteousness.  Now, what does Romans 6:14 mean?  What "law" is Paul referring to when he says we're not under the Law?  Is it possible that Paul is talking about more than one law here?  Under what law is sin our master?  If it's God's Law, then what does being "under the Law" mean?  Does being under the law mean we have to keep the Law?  Or does it mean something else?  Perhaps it means that we are under the curse that comes when we break the Law.

If you interpreted "not being under the Law" as referring to God's Law, then you might want to continue reading.  The very next verse states that we shall no means sin because we are "not under the Law".  It seems that Paul knew how we might misunderstand what he was trying to say, and so he made sure that we would not draw any incorrect conclusions about what he was trying to teach.  If only we would not keep stopping one verse too short.

That brings us to Romans 7, which will be the last chapter we cover in this post.  At the end of Romans 6, Paul reiterates one final time that we have been set free from sin and are now slave to God.  And Romans 7 starts off by making using God's marriage law as an analogy for what he is trying to say.  So now, what is Paul trying to tell us when he says that we have been "released from the Law" (Romans 7:6)?  Which law is he referring to?  If he is referring to God's Law, then is he referring to the requirement to keep the Law?  Or is he referring to the penalty that the Law requires for breaking the Law?  Again, it seems Paul knew how people would interpret what he was saying verses what he was trying to say.  Because in Romans 7:7, he says (clearly referring to God's Law), "What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.'"

Notice again that Paul is saying that it is because of God's Law that we know what is sinful.  And if you keep reading, you will see that Paul is saying that sin uses God's Law to deceive us.  Sound familiar?  It should.  Because this is exactly the same trick that the serpent used in Genesis 3 to deceive Eve into eating the fruit that God said, "you shall not eat of it".  And Paul spends the rest of the chapter explaining how he used to be under the power of sin, but have been saved through Jesus the Messiah (Romans 7:21-25).

In part two, we will (Lord willing), continue to study Paul's writings to prove that he never once taught against God's Law.  For now, I'll leave you with this quote, from Paul:  "I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the flesh a slave to the law of sin."

Part 2 is available here.