Paul's New Testament understanding by Alan Martin

Amen. Some believers want to completely do away with the Old Testament when it comes to their faith and practice, but that's unbiblical. The New Testament writers quoted extensively from the Old Testament and derived much of their teaching from the OT. When Paul says in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 that all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction in righteousness, he is referring directly and explicitly to the Old Testament (and implicitly to the NT) since the NT was not completed and compiled yet. The early church relied heavily on the OT for their instruction in God's ways. Yes, there was new revelation in the NT, which changed how to apply much of the OT, but still, the OT was still to be in use for faith and practice.

Honestly, the ONLY authority I had in mind was the authority of God's Himself.

Mak

Ps - the context of defiance was Romans 2 - how did that get overlooked?

And did not Paul instruct Titus to remind the saints to be subject, fully persuaded, non-contentious, not blaspheming any man, and to demonstrate meekness towards all men.

Encouraging brethren to be subject is simply following sound counsel from the apostle of grace himself. 😄

The answer found in scripture, the simple answer that they were under obligation to obey God because they had been given a direct command to do what they were doing.

They joyfully submitted to threatenings and even punishment. I believe they sought to bless those religious leaders and pray for them even as Jesus instructed them. They did not seek to have them removed from their position, nor blaspheme them by exposing them before all the people. They simply obeyed their Lord and then voluntarily submitted even to being abused.

Much like many of the persecuted saints you pray for continually.
Mak

The two passages from Deutetonomy 21 and Romans 2 use the same two Greek words "apethia" (refusal to be persuaded) and "erithia" (contentious).

Paul stated that the wrath of God would be poured out upon all those who have the same type of heart attitude that the young man had in the passage from Deuteronomy.

Paul did not qualify it further than a heart matter and neither did I, God looks upon the heart, and every man with a heart that refuses to be persuaded and is contentious in His eyes (not men's) will receive wrath and anger.

This upholds the righteousness of God's judgment. Men are not judged for their stumbling or error. Christ even died for the ungodly, which all of us were at one time. We too were all disobedient, deceived, and very contentious, hating and being hated, but God's philanthropy appeared in Christ Jesus and we were saved not by our righteousness but through His mercy and grace.

This is the good news, that God is willing to pardon ALL MEN. He has always been longsuffering, and willing to forgive wickedness, rebellion, and sin, while holding the liable fully guilty.

Men who hear the good news, and persistently refuse to be persuaded and instead become contentious towards the truth will be held liable in the same way such men were judged without mercy in the Old Covenant.

Stubborn defiance of God's word has always and will always continue to be judged for what it is - an evil heart of unbelief! This is what Paul was saying and what I was saying.

I was writing about a heart attitude worthy of judgment, because that's what Paul was writing about.

I hope that helps

Thanks for asking

Yes, perhaps it would, but I simply felt I was understanding the connection Paul was making and helping others see the way he reasoned at times.

I guess this just proves what Peter wrote about Paul's letters, 😏

We all approach subjects from our own vantage point. My focus for this thread was from the vantage point of seeing how Paul and other New Testament writers understood God's righteousness found within the Scriptures and drew from it to express New Covenant truths.

Paul set forth the righteousness of faith within the context of the wrath of God being revealed from heaven. He understood that God's wrath is not arbitrary, but justly and wisely directed at stubborn refusal to be persuaded by the truth. He used "Apethia" (refusal to be persuaded) because he understood how it was used in the Septuagint.

The evil heart of the "apethetic" and "contentious" son in the passage from Deuteronomy was the same heart that Yahweh judged His own people for having. "Apethia" was a summary term that God Himself used to classify the heart condition of the people of Israel who refused His continual attempts to turn them away from their corruption and back towards Himself.

Here are some examples - "All day long I have held out my hands to an "apethetic" and "disputing" people."

Another is found in Isaiah 30:9 - "for this is an apethetic people, false or lying sons, who were not willing to hear the law of God."

Jeremiah 5:23 - "but to this people there became a heart unhearing and apethetic, they turned aside and departed."

This is why Paul knowing the fear of the Lord sought to "persuade" men. Persuade comes from the positive form of "peitho" (to persuade) from which the negative "a" + "peitho" (refusal to be persuaded comes.

He knew that men who were persuaded would be saved. In fact, so did John who wrote - "the one believing in the Son has eternal life, but the one refusing to be persuaded by the Son shall not see life, the wrath of God abides upon him."

I hope this helps to underscore that the writers of the New Testament chose specific words because they understood how they were used in the Old Covenant scriptures.

"Apethia" (refusal to be persuaded) brought the judgment of God upon the individual and the nation who refused the mercy of God and chose to walk in their own stubborn defiance. It is amazing that we are even offered forgiveness, because at one time we too have all walked in this "apethia".
However, like Paul, we did so in ignorance and unbelief. Those who persistently refuse to be persuaded by the good news and die in that state will receive wrath and anger because persistent "apethia" is a sin unto death. It was then and still is now.

Paul twice used "apethia" to classify those upon whom the wrath of God was coming - Ephesians 5:6 and Colossians 3:6 -
....the wrath of God comes upon the sons who refuse to be persuaded."

Mak

Mak wrote:

"However, like Paul, we did so in ignorance and unbelief. Those who persistently refuse to be persuaded by the good news and die in that state will receive wrath and anger because persistent "apethia" is a sin unto death. It was then and still is now."

This reminds me of this precept found in the book of Job.

Job 33:14
For God may speak in one way, or in another,
Yet man does not perceive it.

Job 33:15
In a dream, in a vision of the night,
When deep sleep falls upon men,
While slumbering on their beds,

Job 33:16
Then He opens the ears of men,
And seals their instruction.

Job 33:17
In order to turn man from his deed,
And conceal pride from man,

Job 33:18
He keeps back his soul from the Pit,
And his life from perishing by the sword.

Job 33:19
"Man is also chastened with pain on his bed,
And with strong pain in many of his bones,

Job 33:20
So that his life abhors bread,
And his soul succulent food.

Job 33:21
His flesh wastes away from sight,
And his bones stick out which once were not seen.

Job 33:22
Yes, his soul draws near the Pit,
And his life to the executioners.

Job 33:23
"If there is a messenger for him,
A mediator, one among a thousand,
To show man His uprightness,

Job 33:24
Then He is gracious to him, and says,
‘Deliver him from going down to the Pit;
I have found a ransom’;

Job 33:25
His flesh shall be young like a child’s,
He shall return to the days of his youth.

Job 33:26
He shall pray to God, and He will delight in him,
He shall see His face with joy,
For He restores to man His righteousness.

Job 33:27
Then he looks at men and says,
‘I have sinned, and perverted what was right,
And it did not profit me.’

Job 33:28
He will redeem hisfn soul from going down to the Pit,
And hisfn life shall see the light.

Job 33:29
"Behold, God works all these things,
Twice, in fact, three times with a man,

Job 33:30
To bring back his soul from the Pit,
That he may be enlightened with the light of life.

Would you consider this Scripture as commentary on how God works to 'persuade" men? And if man's pride brings about "apethia" man is already condemned by the notion in the Scripture above as man's destiny is the Pit?

I know sometimes with my limited understanding of the Bible, that some folks probably think I've gone off the deep end with some of my responses. My personal response and belief to this thread is, I think the whole Bible is still relevant today, the only thing that has changed in my opinion is we now live under grace and not law. Please don't throw things at me, as I said I have a limited understanding of the Bible, but I do try and learn and remember as much as my limited brain can handle. Matter fact we all have finite minds, so we must not expect with our finite minds to comprehend the infinite God.

The commands to destroy a person found in the Law are predicated upon the situations described by Moses, as directed by Yahweh, where genuine God given authority is being rejected. Yahweh set the conditions and gave the instructions and put safeguards in place to protect the innocent.

In every case where the authority He Himself had established was willfully rejected, His instructions were to put the guilty one to death so as to prevent others from being polluted by the poisonous defiant attitude.

The writer of Hebrews affirmed that principle - "everyone who rejected the Law of Moses died without mercy on the basis of two or three witnesses."
Defiance of the Law and those acting in true obedience within the Law, was seen by Yahweh as rejection of His Law and defiance of His authority.

So yes, stubborn defiance of God's true authority was a capital offense in the Old Covenant and remains a deadly sin even in the New Covenant.

This thread began as a text message to friends that brother Greg decided to post here on the forum. Unconditional submission to men never even entered my mind. The connection between refusing to be persuaded by the truth and the wrath such an attitude brings is simple enough for most to understand easily.

Is it possible that the real problem is a result from what was "read into" the thread for various reasons. I do not believe refusal to acknowledge unjust authority is defiance, in fact I doubt anyone on this forum has ever believed that. I believe nearly everyone who comes to this forum has a deep appreciation for all who have suffered for refusal to submit to injustice.

It does not appear everyone gives that same benefit of the doubt to their other brothers on this forum. I do not believe this is intentional but very likely due to certain sensitive triggers that are results from previous unresolved issues.

Mak

There were hints of this in the responses that were easily detected

Julius21....The liberty that NT believers have does not give them a license to sin.

Some very good points being posted. I want to share something I found in Union With Christ by Lewis B. Smedes:

The law appears on the scene as another competitor to Jesus Christ (Gal. 5:4). Paul's fundamental thesis about the law is that its time had come to an end: For Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4). To be under the law is to opt for the "old things" that passed away when everything became new in Christ (II Cor. 5:17). And this state has the same ultimate frustrations and fatality as life "in the flesh."

Paul's attitude toward the law, as his feeling about everything, was deeply prejudiced by his life stance within the new Christian reality. He was not much interested in anything in the abstract; what he wanted to know, as the decisive factor, was the bearing a thing had on life in Christ. This is why he was concerned not only with the "what” of a thing, but with the "how” as well; in the case of the law, what he faulted was not its content, but the function it had within the religious community. For its function settled the question of how it bore on people's relationship to God. Anything””even the holy law of God””that got in the way of grace was judged as a threat to salvation in Christ.

Obviously, Paul's basic attitude toward the law is positive. This is not surprising; the God of Jesus Christ is the God of creation and the covenant and the law. As far as its content is concerned, the law is "holy and just and good" (Rom. 7:12). Who would expect the apostle to believe anything else? Christ is the end of the law in this sense; He is the one person whose life was all the law meant human life to be. What the law is, what the law reveals, what the law demands are unassailable from the vantage point of Jesus Christ.

The content of the law gets unconditional praise. But the use people make of the law is another matter. Here things become more complex. There is an important distinction within the function of the law. We can talk about its legitimate and intended function on the one hand and its illegitimate and distorted function on the other. We can talk about the function that God meant it to have and the function that people invested it with.

Let us take, first, its intended positive function. Was the law ever meant to be a means to save oneself? Paul says that the law itself witnessed to the free gift of grace (Rom. 3:21). The beginnings of the Decalogue proclaim that Israel's identity as the people of the law rested in God's mighty act of redemption from Egypt: "I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt." As such the law was a promise; it functioned as a harbinger, a pointer to the reality of divine grace. This is why David and the congregation could sing of their love for the law. As long as the law functioned as a promise or a witness of better things to come, it had to be accepted as a conditional good; but when the reality came, this function was no longer necessary.

But there is also a useful negative function of the law. The law exposes acts of sin for what they are”” rebellion against a living God. The law pins the sinner down, nails him at every corner; it sweeps the whole of life into its net and brands every infraction a culpable act of rebellion (Rom. 7:7-9). As it prohibits immoral and hostile acts, it reveals their true context. At the same time, it shows that everyone living under the law is under a curse; he is condemned (Gal. 3:10). And this is a good and necessary function.

Accepting at full value Paul's positive attitude toward the law, we do an abrupt about-face to hear Paul's indictment of the law. Looked at from within Christ, the law is a bad thing. It is a prison, the dank dungeon of spiritual bondage (Gal. 3:22-23). It is the jailor as well, the man who keeps people in chains (Rom. 7:6). The law is a domineering, restrictive guardian or pedagogue who keeps a child too long from the freedom of the mature (Gal. 3:24). It makes sin the worse (Rom. 7:13) and can even be branded as the power behind sin (I Cor. 15:56). In fact, the law destroys the souls of men (II Cor. 3:6). No wonder Paul says to people who want to find salvation in the law, "You are severed from Christ" (Gal. 5:4). The law is not merely a good thing now outmoded; it is a monster.

In this sense, Christ is the destroyer of the law. He "cancelled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:14). His crucifixion of the law was of a piece with his defeat of the "principalities and powers" (Col. 2:15). The law had become a tool of the enemy; one of God's great goods had been stolen by the enemy and used to destroy God's creatures.

The law became a destructive power because of its alliance with the flesh. When the law came, the "flesh" made the law an instrument of self-righteousness. The law became part of a religious system which fostered man's sense of self-sufficiency. It became party to man's monstrous delusion.

This was the Judaistic religious system that Paul recognized as the enemy of Christ. The law had been turned inside out: rather than a witness to man's need of being saved, it had become a technique to save oneself. The inner meaning of the law had been forgotten: the letter alone was left when the spiritual content of love was ignored. This is the character of life outside of Christ. Although Paul has the Judaistic distortions before him, the situation is parallel to every religious system in which man in weakness pretends to be man in strength, in which man in need of grace pretends to be man without need of grace. Paul sees the world outside of Christ as controlled and dominated by this alliance: moral law (or religious law) and flesh. The moral and religious life of all men is bound to and structured by this fatal alliance.

The law teamed with flesh produces sin. And sin ends in death. This is the fatality of the alliance. Flesh plus law equals death because flesh plus law leaves men in sin. This is why Paul talks about "the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2).

The points in the above essay that I want to press is that the law was and is good insofar as to its original purpose by God upon His people. The purpose of the law was to:

1) Reveal the awesome, perfect nature of God and the high standards which comprise His character and

2) to show us that we fail to meet God’s standard. The law is inflexible and can only point out our failure to meet its high standards. The law was given about 1500 years before Christ in order to prepare God’s people by showing them their sinfulness, in other words, their need for a Savior. In this way the law was the school master.

The law presents God’s standard as absolute perfection. Failure in just one point is considered failure in all points. God does not grade on the curve when one makes the law the basis of his acceptance by God.

We see the two possible reactions that people had living under the law in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee lowered the standard of the law in his mind in order to claim to have kept it all and was filled with self-righteous pride. Jesus’s harshest criticism and rebuke was directed toward the Pharisees because of their false pride (lack of humility), their hypocrisy, and their harsh judgement of those who don’t measure up to the same level of righteousness that the Pharisee (thinks he has attained). God never said that a person in the Old Testament could obtain right standing (salvation) by keeping the law but the religious leaders assumed that that was exactly what was at stake. They twisted the original purpose of the law in order to stand before God and say, "I kept the law. YOU owe me because I EARNED it by my hard work at keeping all of Your laws.” Absolutely no humility or love in any of that.

The tax collector had the correct reaction to being under the law. It exposed his weakness and failure. He said in humility and despair, "God be merciful to me, the sinner” without raising his eyes toward heaven. God will hear the crushed and humbled. He resists the proud.

If anyone tells you that the law is now the Christians "rule of life” is misguided. It is nowhere found in the NT. That third use of the law was a reaction against antinomianism that occurred shortly after the Reformation when some people thought that since we are saved by faith alone we can live as we please. Christ died not only to forgive us of our sins but to deliver us from the power of sin. Any Christian who thinks it is OK to live in gross sin is very deceived or is not saved. The answer to Christians living in carnality in NOT to reintroduce the law as something binding upon us. We have the Spirit as our guide and power for living. The law of Christ is the law of Love. This is the law we as Christians live under. But even here we do not keep the law of Love in order to obtain salvation or eternal life. Salvation is a free gift of grace. We as Christians keep the law of Love because 1) it is fitting to live a life that respects the almighty Creator God. He deserves that kind of respect and submission and 2) we love the Lord and want to live a life pleasing to Him. And also 3) a life of righteousness and holiness and love is our new nature in Christ. It is fitting and suits us as new creatures in Christ. This is the image we are being conformed to day by day.

Good article, thanks for posting.

Is pursuing righteousness legalism? Putting it another way, is pursuing the righteousness of the Law, the same as seeking righteousness "by means of' the Law?

We all know that we are to pursue righteousness. Paul exhorts us to follow his own personal example; moreover, he exhorted Timothy, Titus, and all believers in every church where he ministered to "pursue righteousness."

What "kind" of righteousness was Paul pursing? What kind of righteousness did he have in mind when he exhorted Timothy to "pursue righteousness"? Was Paul in pursuit of the free unmerited righteousness of Christ, or aware that he already possessed that as a free gift, was nonetheless pursing righteousness of character and conduct?

This is a vital question because pursuing righteousness of character and conduct can be misunderstood to be "legalism" or "self righteousness". No doubt it can be for some. However, is there a difference between pursuing the righteousness contained within the Law and pursing that righteousness "by means of" the Law?

Was Paul pursuing righteousness of character and conduct through knowing Christ or was we seeking only to count Christ's righteousness as his own? Is our choice limited to pursuing only one or the other, or can we, perhaps even should we, pursue both?

What did Paul mean by "the righteousness of the Law" when he used this phrase in Romans 8:4? "In order that the righteousness of the Law might be fully met in us, those not walking according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." Was Paul saying that those who walk by the Spirit do not pursue righteousness of character and conduct, but look only to the free gift of Christ's righteousness merited to their account before the Father? Or was Paul saying that those who live according to the Spirit are fulfilling the righteousness found within the Law: they love their neighbor, they care for widows and orphans, they do only justice to foreigners, they seek to live by God's word and guard themselves from being corrupted by the practices of the nations around them? Was Paul saying that those who walk according to the Spirit receive power to actually fulfill the righteousness described within the Law?

I do believe that is what Paul was saying. Paul never saw God's Law as the problem! He viewed the Law as "holy, righteous, and good." How then did that which was good result in death? Paul asked the question this way - "Did that which was good, has it become death to me?" His answer was emphatic - "God forbid!" The Law did not kill men, SIN was what caused death, even before the Law was initiated. Sin was in the world causing death even before the Law came, but men did not recognize what was killing them. God, in His wisdom, introduced the Law that sin might abound, in other words, that through the commandment sin might become recognizable and men would realize the wretched state they were in as slave to the law of sin.

The only reason the letter kills, is because sin takes advantage of the commandment and through the commandment sin puts men to death. In other words, the Law, was not the problem, sin was always the problem. In fact, God's own testimony to His people about the Law that He Himself ordained for them was this - " "For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it." This was God's testimony about the Law He Himself gave to His people!

How then did what God said was "not too hard" become "too hard" for Israel? The same way all of God's ways become hard, through the "evil heart of unbelief." The Law was never the problem, the heart of the people was always the problem. Everyone, rare as they might have been, who had a heart of faith like Joshua and Caleb, who saw God's commandments as good and a blessing experienced the righteousness of faith. An evil heart of unbelief will always see God's ways as too difficult and impossible.

This evil heart of unbelief is THE reason God decided to make a New Covenant. Because His people perpetually had this evil heart, they continually profaned His name by their corrupt character and conduct. His decision to make a New Covenant was not even because of them, but for His own Name's sake. His New Covenant would not be like the former covenant, because the people "did not remain in" that covenant. His Law was holy, righteous, and good, but the heart of the people was corrupted by the evil of unbelief.

The New Covenant would not contain a "different" righteousness than the Law contained, but that righteousness would be attained by a dynamically different means. God would remove the stubborn evil heart from the people and He Himself would create a people purified from lawlessness through a divine circumcision of their hard heart of evil unbelief.

He declared that He was going to do this in order to "show Himself holy" through the righteous conduct and character of the people of this New Covenant. Would this New Covenant no longer involve Law? No, God Himself declared that He would write His law upon the heart and mind of those of the New Covenant and He would inspire them to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments. He declared that He was going to do all this, not for their benefit, but so that His own name would no longer be profaned by His people.

This is the goal of the New Covenant - God showing Himself holy through such a dynamic work of His own spiritual life imparted to us through the life of His Son our Lord Jesus. Thus "what the Law was powerless to due - because it was weak through the flesh (sin in the flesh) God did, He condemned sin in the flesh (it has withered). He has freed men from slavery to the sin. The old man of sin has been rendered powerless through our union with Christ death on the cross so that now we are no longer in any obligation to live according to the flesh.

The Son has set us free from our main enemy - sin! We are now free to serve God in righteousness and holiness just as the angel declared to Zechariah. And the righteousness of the Law is fully met in us because Jesus has given us power and authority to become sons of God. He has redeemed us from all lawlessness and through His divine nature indwelling us, all the righteousness of the Law is being fulfilled in us as His love is shed abroad in our hearts empowering and inspiring us to live in love.

This is the high calling Paul was in pursuit of. This is the righteousness Paul was exhorting Timothy, Titus and all the saints to lay hold of. The high calling of God in Christ Jesus is for a people redeemed of all lawlessness, cleansed and circumcised of an evil heart, filled with His Spirit, will now glorify God through righteousness of character and conduct.

Living lives worthy of the calling we received means pursuing to know the power of Christ in a visible display of righteous conduct whereby God shows Himself holy and men see this demonstration and glorify Him through our good works that His dynamic grace produces.

mak

Brother Alan,
Amen!!
Indeed there seems to be so much confusion regarding the Law, as if the law itself had replaced sin/Satan as the enemy. Sincerely appreciate the time you took to write this out, though I thought the OP by A. Martin was spot on as well. This, I believe, is what the writer had in mind when we are admonished to see wether we are in "the faith". Also, like you, I have noticed 2 Peter 3:16 really does come into play more than most want to admit...

It's interesting to me that some if not most seem to think that when it is written "I will write my law on their hearts" it is somehow referring to a different law than the one that was written in stone?! It, for me, seems to suggest that it's the same law but now in operation internally as a primary motive or imperative. Meaning that since the heart now embodies the law it is more reflective of the sermon on the mount as a heart position.
Paul's employment of the schoolmaster analogy helped allot with this in that tho the law serves as a schoolmaster so long as we are under it, when we are no longer "under it" it's not like it's not still true and holy but is simply not being externally imposed or enforced, rather the holy logic of it has appeared to us as our minds have been illuminated by this truth and we have received the engrafted word in our hearts by faith and again it has, (the law) become our prime directive- as now through the filling/leading of the spirit this new heart with the same law contained in it operating in concert with our conscience which has been purged of dead works (613 ordinances) by the blood of Christ together produce what is ultimately the fruit of the New Covenant, namely a holy character which seeks first the kingdom and it's righteousness. But this character is not in opposition to the old covenant,... rather like Christ is the fulfillment of it as it is we whom have received the promise that they sought but did not obtain as it was far off... So what is that promise? That God Himself would do this work in us so as to produce for Himself a holy people with which He can commune. After reading back over this before I post, it occurs to me that perhaps some see the Law and the Spirit somehow in opposition whereas I see them walking together in agreement~

No need for that brother bear.

"Love does no harm to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law."

This is why Christ only needed give a "new" commandment, the truth of which is seen in Him. Love others like I have loved you."

Upon this love, hangs all the Law and the Prophets.

"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, what counts is faith working through love."

mak

One is saved through faith in Christ. And one is filled with the Spirit. So does one go back to the ten words of Moses as a guide for how to please God???

Was just browsing through this thread and I thought that this was a good question because it gets down to the root of the gospel. Many people can understand that we died to sin, but expect that the consequence of this will surely be that we are alive to the law, which is really the highest expression of the will of God. The problem is that though the law was given by God, it cannot help us to take even one step along the way of salvation. It contributed nothing to our justification, and equally can contribute nothing at all to our sanctification.

To quote Paol Madsen;

"The gospel is God's own righteousness. In it is revealed the righteousness of God or righteousness from God. It is not a means which we can use to become righteous in ourselves, but it gives us righteousness from God by faith and unto faith. In this way the law is fulfilled. The gospel, therefore, doesn't confront us with the law, but with Christ. He who believes the gospel is righteous before God for time and eternity. He has not first to win righteousness, for he is fully righteous. He does not have to prove that he is fulfilling the law, for God's righteousness needs no proofs. The law has no demands to make on such a man; he is not living within its sphere and is not occupied with its "Thou shalts" and its "Thou shalt nots", but is filled with the love of God in Christ Jesus."

In Christ,

appolus writes:

Men who claim there is no such thing as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the accompanying sign's, cessasionists, can only ever be proud or self-righteous for they pursue in their own strength that which can only be attained by His power through the Holy Spirit.

Are you referring to speaking in tongues as a necessary sign of that Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Thanks for the answer.