Good Tanakh/Old Testament study Bible

[jlay]

John teaches a judgement based on works as well in Revelation 20:12, and this was revealed a while after both Jesus' and Paul's ministries. I would also point out Revelation 20:15, which seems to teach salvation through faith as well, as it shows that those who were written in the book of life were saved by that alone, and were not judged.

I've certainly learned over 41 years that I can misunderstand, and would never be so proud to say otherwise. In fact, my current position is one reformed from previous understandings. Revelation is most certainly a unique book in the canon. I would say (as would others) that the driving force in Pauline dispensationalism (PD) is that of following a literal grammatical historical hermanuetic. Not trying to prooftext verses to fit a system. So, the question with Revelation is, "what purpose and to whom is this message for?' The eschatology of Rev. is about the restoring of things. the consumation of the promises.

Let me diverge for a moment. Here is a common 'gospel' presentation today. "You are a sinner (true) and Christ is a savior (true.) (Quote Romans 3:23) You need to repent, that is forsake your sin (wrong definiation of repent) and trust in Christ (true). This is an all or nothing committment. (faith is redefined as one's personal effort) And you need to walk this isle in front of all these people and be publicly baptized as a profession of your faith because Jesus said, "whoever denies me before men, him I will deny." Matt. 10:33 (personal pre-faith performance) Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow me. (does a lost person know what that means? Uh, no.) If you do this Christ will come into your heart and change you."

What that is, is a hodge podge of proof-text that totally abandons a hernanuetic, to build a case to fit some religious ideology. Then that same person will say, "Salvation is a gift." I've heard it and read it a hundred times.

Something that's important is to understand the Biblical concept of faith. Biblical faith is not just mental acceptance or lip profession, it is something that is truly in the heart and is naturally manifested outwardly.

If faith is naturally manifested outwardly, then deeds aren't really deeds. Not any more than a tree has to 'work' to produce its fruit. I agree that genuine faith SHOULD produce some evidence. Paul believed it as well. But are the deeds the measure of trusting in Christ? Le's remember that prior to salvation a person is dead. They can't commit to perform or live up to a standard. They are dead and incapable of pleasing God. They are incapable of reforming their life such as forsaking their sin. At least in the sense that it would contribute to their salvation. But the bible is clear that they can change their mind (repent) and trust Christ.
This elicits a lot of questions. How is one regenerated? Is salvation secure? What is a deed? How many is enough? If the standard of personal redemtion TODAY is the Olivet discourse, then salvation is not by grace through faith. http://www.gotquestions.org/Olivet-discourse.html If through our reading we apply those verses to individual, personal redemption/salvation today then there is a conflict.


I don't disagree with your explanation of faith. I am very familiar with everything you reference here. Faith is trusting IN. Not simply an intellect ascent, but a personal confidence in something or someone. In this case the work and message of Christ. If Paul was preaching exactly the same thing, then Paul's office really makes very little sense. The 12 had already been commissioned to go into the world preaching their Gospel. The 12 were to go and make other disciples, who would then repeat the process. Paul was not made a disciple by the disciples. He was not taught His Gospel by men, but given it directly from the Lord. Why?

So, other than stating that you think I have misunderstood, I don't see where you have shown that. I agree that Revelation confirms a judgment based on works, and is basically the fulfillment of what Christ was teaching Israel in His earthly ministry, and an answer to the disciples question, "Are you now going to restore the Kingdom to ISRAEL? (Acts 1:6)
Why would the disciples, who had their understanding opened by Christ, and had just spent 40 days under the tutalage of the risen Lord ask such a question? Were they rebuked for it? No.

[Gman]

I'm back.. Just returned from Israel. The land of the free, home of the brave.

/*edit: please note edit at bottom of the post before responding*/

Obviously if we love Christ we should obey Him. But that goes back to the earlier part of the thread and K's line of questioning: what commandments are we to obey? G, you assume that Christ's commandments to Israel are intended for us as well. But that's obviously not true. Acts 15 states bluntly that Gentiles are not under the Law. If we are to obey the Torah, then Acts 15 is wrong. You have created a contradiction in Scripture.

What specifically in Acts 15? Also I've already provided the verses that connect us to Israel.. I'm not going to repeat myself for the 100 time.

Moreover, I think you are mistaken about the message of Galatians. Paul is not just saying that we aren't justified by works. Yes, that was Luther's interpretation, but he missed the bigger picture. Paul was talking to believers. They were already justified. The error he was freaking out about was their desire to be perfected (that is, sanctified) by following the law. So he says:

• You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? (Gal 3:1-3, NIV)

The Galatians were trying to finish "by means of the flesh," that is, by following the Law. Note the placement of the verse in the book. This is the very first thing Paul says in the doctrinal portion of the epistle. This statement sets the context for all the coming discussion about the Law. A further analysis of Galatians reveals just what Paul really did think about the Law. Consider the five word pictures Paul uses to discuss the Law:

Again... As I've stated many many many times... I'm not advocating that we are justified by works or by doing the law. Please read my previous posts before you respond.

• 1) For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law. (Gal 3:10, NIV)

Paul here is not advocating that the Torah can't be obeyed perfectly, rather that someone who takes a legalistic interpretation of the Torah violates at least one of the commandments and thus come under a curse. Following Torah (or you say the law) DOES expect disobedience but makes explicit provision for it by mentioning sin offerings for offenses and thus avoiding a curse.

2) Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. (Gal 3:23, NIV)
3) So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Gal 3:24-25, NIV)

No.. Paul did not mean that Torah was cancelled or done away with.. He meant that we should not look to Torah as a way to earn salvation. Salvation is of grace.

4) What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. (Gal. 4:1-5, NIV)

5)Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. . . . But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” (Gal. 4:21-23, 30, NIV)[/list]
Now look at what each of these pictures of the law. In (1), the Law is pictured as a curse. In (2), the Law is pictured as a jailor. In (3), the Law is pictured as a pedagogue. Now, the NIV renders this "guardian." The NASB renders it "tutor." The Greek word is paidogogos a literally means "child-leader." In Greek culture, the paidagogos was the person who was in charge of the children, sort of like a Mary Poppins type figure. He would train and discipline the children until the day the child became an adult (usually thirteen), at which time the child was released from the paidogogos and then raised by the father himself. In (4) the Law is pictured similarly as a house manager who runs the affairs of the house until the child is old enough to run it himself. And in (5), the Law is pictured allegorically as Hagar and Ishmael, and Paul says explicitly they were to be thrown out!

I'd take a moment to point out in particular that 4:21 is particularly applicable to you, since you have professed your desire to be under the Law. Paul explicitly says that you are making yourself a child of Hagar--a child of the slave woman and a child of bondage--rather than a child of freedom.

Now, what all of these word pictures have something in common: they are good in and of themselves, but not something you want to be under permanently. Curses are pronounced on the wicked, and are good insofar as they punish evil. But you being under a curse is bad. You look forward to the day you are released from it. Jailors are good, insofar as they punish evildoers. But you don't want to be locked up by one. You look forward to the day of your release. Pedagogues are good, insofar as they train children. But you don't want to be under one forever. You look forward to the day you can relate directly to your father. House managers are good, insofar as they run affairs while you are incapable of doing so. But you look forward to the day that you are capable of living your own life. And well . . . there's nothing good about being a descendent of a slave woman rather than being a child of a free woman. Paul explicitly says to "get rid of" the slave woman and her children, that is, to get rid of the Law and those under it!

You may want to be under the Law, but Paul says you are bewitched, under a curse, in prison, stuck as child, not able to run your own affairs, and the descendent of the slave woman rather than the free woman (the woman of promise!). He says you are trying to perfect by the works of the flesh what can only be done by the promise, which is received through faith.

Under the law? Galatians 3 through 4 is NOT OT vs NT. You are missing the point of it. It is about whether or not Gentiles need to become legally Jewish in order to merit salvation. We follow Torah because I believe it magnifies Yeshua (Christ). Plus it is beneficial for our training..

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

We are not under the Law. To say we are is to fall into the Galatian Heresy. Jlay is right, of course, that dispensationalism proves that we are free from the Law. But exegetical theology proves it just as, if not more, clearly in Galatians. I encourage you to submit to Christ and obey His commands, Gman. Cast aside the Law as He has commanded you to do. Live by faith, and not by the Law. Become the mature believer that He died so you can become. Anything less, and you are following a false gospel, which Paul says in Gal 1:8-9 makes you anathema (not "eternally condemned" as per the NIV, but under the curse, as the rest of the book demonstrates).

I'm not saying that we put ourselves under Torah to justify ourselves rather we follow Torah because we love and respect Him. Obey what? Again... As I have stated many times... We don't even know what sin is apart from the Torah. Look at Romans 7 again.

Romans 7:7 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.”

Obey that....

Be free. Faith alone, my friend. Faith alone. No Law.

So free that no one has as clue as to what it means... Take away Torah and everything becomes subjective...

edit: Gman, if you would, take a few minutes and read this paper before replying to the above. It's written by a good friend of mine and covers all of the above material in great detail. He wrote it as part of his PhD studies in Linguistics. It's one of the most powerful presentations I've ever read on this subject. Let me know what you think.

I'll read it later...

[PaulSacramento]

To me it always seemed an issue of intent, WHY are you obeying the Law?
Is it to earn salvation? to keep from God's wrath? To show you are superiour to your neighbour?
With Christ and Grace we understand that doing what is under the law to earn salvation ( or any other thing) is not only not needed but goes against the spirit of the Law.
Salvation is given to Us by God's grace through Christ so why do we obey the Law? or shoudl we?
Yes we should because the moral laws are good and correct under God ( I am speaking of the 10 commandments mostly) but the reason ( intent) is no longer to earn anything but it is because we LOVE God and wish to please God because of Our Love for Him and His Love for Us.

[Jac3510]

G you didn't even read my post, did you? I'll only take two instances

Moreover, I think you are mistaken about the message of Galatians. Paul is not just saying that we aren't justified by works. Yes, that was Luther's interpretation, but he missed the bigger picture. Paul was talking to believers. They were already justified. The error he was freaking out about was their desire to be perfected (that is, sanctified) by following the law. So he says:

• You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? (Gal 3:1-3, NIV)

The Galatians were trying to finish "by means of the flesh," that is, by following the Law. Note the placement of the verse in the book. This is the very first thing Paul says in the doctrinal portion of the epistle. This statement sets the context for all the coming discussion about the Law. A further analysis of Galatians reveals just what Paul really did think about the Law. Consider the five word pictures Paul uses to discuss the Law:

Again... As I've stated many many many times... I'm not advocating that we are justified by works or by doing the law. Please read my previous posts before you respond.

Read this closely. I am not saying you are advocating justification by works. I SAID THE OPPOSITE. I said you are NOT advocating justification by works. I said you are missing the point of Galations when you interpret Paul as attacking justification by works. I said you are advocating SANCTIFICATION by works (i.e., by following the law).

If you want me to read your posts before I respond, maybe you should read the post you are responding to before you respond.

And second

• 1) For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law. (Gal 3:10, NIV)

Paul here is not advocating that the Torah can't be obeyed perfectly, rather that someone who takes a legalistic interpretation of the Torah violates at least one of the commandments and thus come under a curse. Following Torah (or you say the law) DOES expect disobedience but makes explicit provision for it by mentioning sin offerings for offenses and thus avoiding a curse.

• 2) Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. (Gal 3:23, NIV)
  3) So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Gal 3:24-25, NIV)

No.. Paul did not mean that Torah was cancelled or done away with.. He meant that we should not look to Torah as a way to earn salvation. Salvation is of grace.

I don't even have any comments in this. My comments come below. So what are you even responding to? Certainly not my arguments. And second . . "No . .. Paul did not mean . . ." NO?!? I quote Paul directly and you say NO? You can't say NO to Paul! Again, if you would READ what I wrote (below this) and actually bothered to interact with my exegesis . . . you know . . . have a DISCUSSION on a DISCUSSION FORUM . . . you would see that I'm arguing that Paul doesn't have salvation in view at all here. He's talking about sanctification. That's what my entire post is about. Your theology requires we be sanctified by keeping the Law. Paul says that is a false Gospel, and you are anathema for teaching it. Paul says that we ought to do away with the Law completely, that those who attempt to follow it are the children of bondage, under a pedagogue, under a curse, in jail, under a house manager. But those of us who are under GRACE and NOT LAW are free, mature, children of God.

So how about you read my posts before responding to me, especially if you are going to accuse me of not reading you before I respond. Fair enough. I expect more from a moderator.

[jlay]

Jac,

I addressed this problem with G earlier. That being when he said, "if we love God,...." which of course implies that those who don't follow the Torah don't really love God. I like the fact that you pointed out the distinction in justification and sanctification.

As G said,

If we claim to love Him, then we should obey.. It's that simple. It needs to be out of love, not legalism.

Obey of course, relating directly to the Torah. The implications is that it puts the law back in place, and makes it the mediator, not Christ.

[Jac3510]

Jac,

I addressed this problem with G earlier. That being when he said, "if we love God,...." which of course implies that those who don't follow the Torah don't really love God. I like the fact that you pointed out the distinction in justification and sanctification.

As G said,

If we claim to love Him, then we should obey.. It's that simple. It needs to be out of love, not legalism.

Obey of course, relating directly to the Torah. The implications is that it puts the law back in place, and makes it the mediator, not Christ.

Quite right, J. Jesus said plainly that if we love Him, we will obey His commandments. The question is, what are those commands in context. G is asserting (wrongly, I think) that His commandments include the OT. But it would be near impossible to make that case based on the text.

Second, add to that the question, is obeying Jesus' commands necessary for salvation? Clearly, the answer is no, and G has to agree with that. Note that G agrees that one does not keep the Law to be saved; if he thinks that Jesus' commands include the OT, then he is saying (rightly here, I think) that we DON'T have to love Jesus to be saved. But then we come to the issue I raised. Paul's point in Galatians is not that the Judaizers were trying to be justified by the Law, but rather that they were trying to be perfected by the Law (a sanctification issue). Paul says that they are "bewitched."

So G has a serious problem. On the one hand, he recognizes (or, at least, his theology recognizes) that loving Jesus is a matter of sanctification and not justification; but Paul says explicitly that keeping the OT law is not required for sanctification, and that it is to be bewitched to say that it is; indeed, it is a false Gospel. But G would require us to keep the OT to love Christ, to keep the OT for our sanctification. So he and Paul are in conflict here.

Ah, the Galatian heresy . . . how often it rears its ugly head.

[Gman]

G you didn't even read my post, did you? I'll only take two instances

You have no clue what I'm saying or talking about....

Read this closely. I am not saying you are advocating justification by works. I SAID THE OPPOSITE. I said you are NOT advocating justification by works. I said you are missing the point of Galations when you interpret Paul as attacking justification by works. I said you are advocating SANCTIFICATION by works (i.e., by following the law).

You are confused... I'm not saying at all that you have to do any works or any of the commandments to merit salvation... And not for sanctification either. Where did I say that? However, I'm claiming that if a believer is truly flowing G-d, he will naturally want to obey the commandments as outlined in the Bible. Not for gaining points with G-d, but out of loving devotion.

You don't think we have to obey G-d anymore? What freedom are you talking about here? Freedom from what?

f you want me to read your posts before I respond, maybe you should read the post you are responding to before you respond.

I have... And they are meaningless.. So free that no one even knows what that means... Sounds like lawlessness to me.

And second

I don't even have any comments in this. My comments come below. So what are you even responding to? Certainly not my arguments. And second . . "No . .. Paul did not mean . . ." NO?!? I quote Paul directly and you say NO? You can't say NO to Paul! Again, if you would READ what I wrote (below this) and actually bothered to interact with my exegesis . . . you know . . . have a DISCUSSION on a DISCUSSION FORUM . . . you would see that I'm arguing that Paul doesn't have salvation in view at all here. He's talking about sanctification. That's what my entire post is about. Your theology requires we be sanctified by keeping the Law. Paul says that is a false Gospel, and you are anathema for teaching it. Paul says that we ought to do away with the Law completely, that those who attempt to follow it are the children of bondage, under a pedagogue, under a curse, in jail, under a house manager. But those of us who are under GRACE and NOT LAW are free, mature, children of God.

It is apparent that you are fearful of the Bible... The Bible is not an evil book full of curses.... Again, the Bible is our instruction book. Please do not be scared of it. All scripture is beneficial to us.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So how about you read my posts before responding to me, especially if you are going to accuse me of not reading you before I respond. Fair enough. I expect more from a moderator.

I'm wasting my time with this....

[Gman]

Jac,

I addressed this problem with G earlier. That being when he said, "if we love God,...." which of course implies that those who don't follow the Torah don't really love God. I like the fact that you pointed out the distinction in justification and sanctification.

As G said,

If we claim to love Him, then we should obey.. It's that simple. It needs to be out of love, not legalism.

Obey of course, relating directly to the Torah. The implications is that it puts the law back in place, and makes it the mediator, not Christ.

Nice logic... You don't think the Bible points to Christ? Again I'll say the same thing I said to Jac. The Bible is NOT an evil book. It is G-d breathed. It is beneficial for us to study and apply.

So in your book.... A born again believer in Christ will not want to obey G-d or follow the teachings of Torah? Please show me the churches that teach this so that I can avoid them.

[Jac3510]

What you are teaching is plain heresy, Gman--the Galatian heresy, specifically. You are directly disobeying God's Word as stated through Paul. You don't have to talk about it if you don't want to, but ignoring it doesn't change that fact.

You said it yourself that you WANT to be under the Law. That's clouding your judgment. Paul is speaking directly to you in Galatians and he calls you bewitched.

[Gman]

What you are teaching is plain heresy, Gman--the Galatian heresy, specifically. You are directly disobeying God's Word as stated through Paul. You don't have to talk about it if you don't want to, but ignoring it doesn't change that fact.

You said it yourself that you WANT to be under the Law. That's clouding your judgment. Paul is speaking directly to you in Galatians and he calls you bewitched.

As long as the teachings promote love, then put me under that... Please do not hate the Bible.. G-d's word. I'll leave you with a verse from James..

James 1:22 But don't just listen to God's word. You must do what it says. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves.

[Jac3510]

I don't hate the Bible. I hate when the Bible is misinterpreted. I hate intentional disobedience. Paul was furious with the Judaizers. He said they should castrate themselves.

You're putting people under bondage. That's what I hate. Again, Paul explicitly compares the Law to a curse, to a jailor, to a pedagogue, to a house manager, and to Haggar. Concerning Haggar, he says explicitly to throw her out--her and her children; that is, those who want to be under the Law.

You can ignore Paul if you like. I'm free from the Law. The Law I follow is the Royal Law: to love others and to love God. The Law you follow is but a shadow of the real Law of Christ. You're busy with the kiddie stuff when Christ is offering you the world. And you are rejecting it. That makes you anathema (Gal 1:8-9). Worse, you are encouraging others to reject it. You'll answer to God for that.

[jlay]

You don't think we have to obey G-d anymore? What freedom are you talking about here? Freedom from what?

G, I hope you understand how we see this as talking out of both sides of your mouth. When you say 'have to' that is a non-negotiable. So, when you say we don't have to, and then imply we do have to, I'm sure you can see the contradiction.
A believer has to trust the finished work of Christ. God was very wise to send us Paul. And Paul, as Jac already points out, does not instruct Gentile believers to start following the OT. The laws in the Torah are from God, and they served His purposes on the earth in times past.

Nice logic... You don't think the Bible points to Christ? Again I'll say the same thing I said to Jac. The Bible is NOT an evil book. It is G-d breathed. It is beneficial for us to study and apply.

First of all, I think as a mod you should stop inferring that we are implying that the Bible is an evil book. I'm certain there were people saying the same thing to Paul. In error I might add.
All scripture is God breathed. Where is that verse written? (2 Tim. 3:16)
However, I'm not sure why you ignore the previous verse, sense Paul gives Timothy a CRITICAL instruction on what to do with the word.
"Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15)
Some translations do a poor job here, but look for yourself and see what the original word means and meant to Timothy.
http://biblos.com/2_timothy/2-15.htm
orthotomounta= straightly cutting
Why would one need to DIVIDE the word? To know what is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. More specifically how and what to apply and to whom. Was God wise to send Paul? To whom was he sent? (Romans 11:13) If it is as you say, then Paul is not needed. The ministry of the 12 would be sufficient. But that is not what happened.
When one becomes a believer, that doesn't mean they shouldn't live a certain way. Paul addresses this in Ephesians 4-6. There are things a believer SHOULD and should not do. But no where do you see him saying that following the OT like a pre-Messiah Jew would is going to show that anyone loves God, or that it is a 'natural' thing to do.

[PaulSacramento]

One of the things that gets believers accused of circular thinking is the issue of the authority of the bible.
The bible is NOT authoritative because the bible says so and it is NOT the "word of God" because it's writers proclaim it to be so.
Passages like 2 Timothy 3: 16-17 are fine for their original intent when written ( to point out the usefulness and authority of scripture in matters relating to scripture and " useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" BUT they can't be used to Prove the authority of the bible or prove that the bible is "god breathed" or " inspired" or anything like that.
To say that the bible is the Word of God because the bible says its the word of God is perfect example of Circular reasoning and we can' be guilt of that because that does not do The Faith any service at all.
For the bible to be authoritative is MUST stand on its own merit and not because somewhere inside it, it says that it is authoritative.

[jlay]

Paul,

Are you criticizing my reference to those verses?

[Gman]

G, I hope you understand how we see this as talking out of both sides of your mouth. When you say 'have to' that is a non-negotiable. So, when you say we don't have to, and then imply we do have to, I'm sure you can see the contradiction.
A believer has to trust the finished work of Christ. God was very wise to send us Paul. And Paul, as Jac already points out, does not instruct Gentile believers to start following the OT. The laws in the Torah are from God, and they served His purposes on the earth in times past.

No they are not contradictions.. Doing something out of love and doing something out of legalism are two opposite ways.

First of all, I think as a mod you should stop inferring that we are implying that the Bible is an evil book. I'm certain there were people saying the same thing to Paul. In error I might add.
All scripture is God breathed. Where is that verse written? (2 Tim. 3:16)
However, I'm not sure why you ignore the previous verse, sense Paul gives Timothy a CRITICAL instruction on what to do with the word.
"Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15)
Some translations do a poor job here, but look for yourself and see what the original word means and meant to Timothy.
http://biblos.com/2_timothy/2-15.htm
orthotomounta= straightly cutting
Why would one need to DIVIDE the word? To know what is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. More specifically how and what to apply and to whom. Was God wise to send Paul? To whom was he sent? (Romans 11:13) If it is as you say, then Paul is not needed. The ministry of the 12 would be sufficient. But that is not what happened.
When one becomes a believer, that doesn't mean they shouldn't live a certain way. Paul addresses this in Ephesians 4-6. There are things a believer SHOULD and should not do. But no where do you see him saying that following the OT like a pre-Messiah Jew would is going to show that anyone loves God, or that it is a 'natural' thing to do.

Right... 2 Tim. 2:15 is talking about rightly DIVIDING the word.. However what you seem to be implying is not DIVIDING G-d's word but ERASING G-d's word into oblivion. Don't forget that Christ did not come to abolish G-d's laws. He came to fulfill them.

Matthew 5:17 -18 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

I never said that one has to work to attain salvation or sanctification. It's not about having to DO anything, it's having the heart to WANT to do G-d's will... So please stop putting words in my mouth.