Hi Carlos,<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] In the meanwhile, I do disagree with his statement "So I claim that Plarosai teaches that "He came to confirm and restore the full measure, intent, and purpose of the Older Testamental law. I believe that in the book of Matthew, "fullfill", which is used about 16 times, means much more than simply "to confirm and restore the full measure....". I believe all those scriptures where it is used point to "accomplished" or "to bring to pass" the promises and prophecies, the purpose of the law, etc</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I have not done a survey of pleirow in the Book of Matthew, and I am not an expert on Bahnsen's exegesis of this passage, however I do remember a couple of points to his argument as to why this is not a reference to the promises and prophecies. If you take a look at the context, Matthew 5:16 is talking about good works. After the verse in question, Jesus proceeds to talk about breaking commandments, and how our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, citing particular commandments such as murder, adultery, giving oaths, "an eye for eye", etc. These are not dealing with the fulfillment of prophecies, rather with the fulfillment of moral stipulations. This is important because He is blasting the Pharisees for their own twisted instruction on these virtues, but Jesus affirms the abiding continuity of these laws while correcting the Pharasaic distortions, and hence confirming and restoring the moral law to a full measure.<br><br>As a side note, when the Westminster Confession affirms the following about the Law of God:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>It gives as a proof text to my emphasized point Matthew 5:17-19. Hence the Westminster Assembly did not see this text as teaching a fulfillment in the way of abrogation, but in confirmation.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>