Is The Old Covenant Binding Upon the Church

Rebuttal to Your Opening Argument The premise of your argument seems to be based on the logical fallacy of false attribution. The resolution for the debate is whether or not the Old Covenant is binding upon the Christian Church today, not about the New Covenant replacing the Old. I have not, as of yet, claimed that the New replaces the Old, nevertheless allow me to address the rest of your argument. You say, " The only one people like to disqualify is the mosaic covenant." You are right that the other covenants are still in effect, but you cannot compare them to the Mosaic Covenant because this covenant engendered bondage (Galatians 4:24). Israel was bound to do all the Torah else a curse would be upon them (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26). Jeremiah 11 also tells of this curse and how God would depart from them for their iniquities. So unlike the other covenants that were all on God's part to keep, the stipulation of the Mosaic Covenant was that Israel had to continue in all the commandments of the Torah (Leviticus 18:5, Ezekiel 20:11). Notice the language of Exodus 19:5-6; "if ye will obey." This denoted the conditional aspect of this covenant. Notice also Deuteronomy 7:12, "if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep them, and do them." God will keep this covenant with those who love Him and keep His commandments (Deuteronomy 7:9). All of God's covenants have the condition of faith of course, but only the Mosaic Covenant has the condition of the works of the Torah. You have utilized yet another logical fallacy of false dichotomy: the fact that God will keep the other covenants does not necessitate or imply that God will keep the Mosaic Covenant since there were stipulated premises for this covenant. You say, "These commands are of the mosaic law," in reference to following after righteousness. May I point out Galatians 2:21, ". . .if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." Following after righteousness does not equate to observing the Torah. This is an equivocation fallacy. The dispensation of Grace does not entail observing the Torah but entails walking in the Spirit (Galatians 5). And indeed, the observance of the Torah is contrasted with following in the God in the inward spirit in Romans 2:29. Romans 3 is against your statement; consider v. 21 especially. Righteousness in this dispensation of Grace is not by observing Torah but by the, ". . .faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe" (v. 22). V. 26 tells us that the righteousness of Christ justifies us as He is our propitiation. Romans 4 tells us that righteousness is imputed to us by faith in Jesus Christ. Your claim is unfounded. You say, "Yeshua in fact kept ALL the law and commands of god." Yes He did, and I'm glad He did, else He would not be able to be the spotless Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world! The dispensation of the Law was still in effect of course during Jesus' life and ministry. He was sent to Israel (Matthew 15:24). Galatians 4:4-5 also tells us that He was able to save those under the Law since He was born of a woman under the Law. But Galatians 3:23 tells us that those who were under the law in the previous dispensation were shut up (or closed out) from the faith that was to come by Jesus Christ. Now in the context of the promised Spirit of God to indwell and guide the believer, God's people are no longer under the Law (Galatians 5:18). The Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, but now that faith in Christ has come, we are no longer under the Law (Galatians 3:25). You say, "If the law of the old covenant is no more then how do we define sin?" Sin is transgression of God's Law, but this does not necessarily equate to the specific Mosaic Law given to Israel. Romans 2 tells us that the Gentiles who have not the Law, do by nature the things in the Law which is a law unto themselves (v. 14). Of course we know that Gentiles do not keep the ceremonial ordinances by nature, so this must be referring to the unchanging moral aspect of God's Law, love God, love your neighbor, etc; this is the heart of the Torah (http://www.hebrew4christians.com...). This is why a Gentile without the Torah can still be judged by God as a sinner, since their righteousness comes not by the letter of the Torah, but by their faith (or lack thereof) in God. By the way, sin is not lawlessness. That is a bad translation. Sin is not the absence of Law in one's life, but it is the transgression of God's Law, whether written in the Torah or upon the table of the heart (Romans 2:15, 1 John 3:4). You say, "Why was this promise given in exodus, restated in 1 peter, and carried out in revelations if it is no more?" I think you were referring to 1 Peter 2:9 not 2:10? Since your whole argument's premise is based on the logical fallacy of false attribution (having claimed that I am arguing that the Old Covenant is replaced by the New), your questions are also many times irrelevant. I have no problem with Peter quoting Exodus since the Old Testament is not "no more." Consider the substance of what is being quoted. We as Christians become a royal priesthood and a holy people to God just as the nation of Israel was to be. You say, "If you believe the old covenant is no more you believe the prophets were false." Good thing I don't believe the Old Testament is "no more." You say, ". . .what prophecy indicates The 'old covenant' will be done away with." None. This does not negate the fact the Mosaic Covenant is no longer binding upon God's people. Of course the prophets would not speak of this because they inquired of the salvation which was to come by faith in Jesus Christ but were shut up unto the faith that is now come 9they had no idea bout it) (1 Peter 1:10, Galatians 3:23). Your utilization of Amos 3:7 is faulty. How can Paul's Gospel of Grace be a mystery if they understood it all along (Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:26-27, et al)? Just because certain prophetic truths were given to the prophets does not mean that they understood them all. That blindness in part would happen to Israel, that the Gentiles would be grafted in and Israel removed, that both Jew and Gentile would be made one in the body of Christ, that salvation through imputed righteousness without the Torah by faith in Jesus Christ are all indeed mysteries unknown to the prophets (Romans 11, Ephesians 2, Romans 4). You say, ". . .the ONLY conclusion could be that we have gravely misunderstood Paul's writings. . ." No I think the only conclusion we can make so far based on your opening argument is that you have gravely misunderstood my position. Again, never did I say the New replaces the Old. So far all you have done is made statements and asked questions which are entirely based on false attribution on your part. You assuredly have not made a case addressing the resolution. Why should the Mosaic Covenant be binding upon the Christians Church. Please do not answer with more questions, but address the resolution by stating your scriptural evidence. Defense of My Opening Argument Since your round 1 argument was based on false attribution, there is not much to defend concerning what I have already stated. I will leave you with a few verses to consider to further support my position. Notice the dichotomy of Hebrew 10 between the Old and New Covenants. Consider v. 9, "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Also notice Romans 5:20 and Galatians 3:19, the Torah was added and entered as God's new dispensation through Moses because of transgressions and that the offence of such might abound. The dichotomy of the knowledge and prospect of sin reigning unto death by the Torah, and grace through righteousness by Jesus Christ is very telling (Romans 5:21). The scriptures are very clear; now that Grace/Faith/Christ has come, Torah is fulfilled and we are no longer under the curse (Galatians 3:13, 25).