Paul: The Law is a Ministration of Death, 2 Cor. 3:7.

[BarneyFife]

Straw man argument. Galatians 3:24-26 does not teach antinomianism and neither do I. With that being said we are still not justified by the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. (Galatians 2:16) Salvation is not by grace plus law, faith plus works as SDA's basically teach.

Romans 3:24 - being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Hi, Dan!

But aren't you just making a distinction without a difference here, and then countering with a straw man of your own?

The absence of antinomianism that holds to an ambiguous law is, to fallen human nature, little better than anarchy.

After all, who, among those who oppose the ten commandments, agree on precisely what law it is that Christians are obliged to keep? Not enough to avoid pluralism, I'm afraid.

And, as one who's obviously been in the thick of these discussions, I can testify that that little detail is of no consequence to those who are busy giving the ten commandments a good beatdown.

So, while you may not teach strict antinomianism, many on this very forum, in fact, do so.

And no Seventh-day Adventist I know of teaches that the works of man can justify a man in terms of atonement with God. I sure would like to see such a statement from one, though. I'm not saying they don't exist in some form but all one has to do to see that such a belief is in no way Adventist orthodoxy is to point their web browser of choice to adventist.org/beliefs.

It seems to me that if one holds that all but the fourth commandment is morally relevant to Christians, then a satisfactory explanation should be forthcoming as to why, up until about 50 or so years ago, no one outside of a "progressive" seminary study hall would dare suggest that God accidentally did what amounts to dropping a temporary, dispensation-specific, ceremonial statute in the middle of His moral code for the human race.

My Southern Baptist grandmother wouldn't let us kids mow her lawn on Sunday and we all knew exactly why that was.

And I now know why, better than ever:

She thought Sunday was the 7th day of the week, Dan, and so did most other Christians, including us grandkids.

And she wasn't about to have her grandkids trampling the ten commandments underfoot right smack dab on her property.

That's pretty much exactly how she would have put it, too, and nobody in town would've thought that to be controversial at all.

But, then, they didn't have the misinformation superhighway back then.

Sure, the calendar had Saturday in position 7, but the church had Sunday there, and the real authority, TV Guide, had Friday there! - lol

Interestingly enough (at least, to me), my other (maternal) grandmother did, in fact, know which day was the 7th day of the week because she listened to Pastor Joe Crews talk about that and many other interesting Bible topics on the Amazing Facts program over clear-channel AM radio every night. She never took her stand for that truth openly, but when I became an Adventist in 1990, she was not surprised at all, and confided in me that she believed what she had heard. She and her mother were the best Christian role models I had as a child, and I know I'll be reunited with them very soon.

Sorry for the rant/ramble, Dan. Always a pleasure to see you around and about, of course.

.

 

[mailmandan]

Hi, Dan!

But aren't you just making a distinction without a difference here, and then countering with a straw man of your own?

The absence of antinomianism that holds to an ambiguous law is, to fallen human nature, little better than anarchy.

After all, who, among those who oppose the ten commandments, agree on precisely what law it is that Christians are obliged to keep? Not enough to avoid pluralism, I'm afraid.

And, as one who's obviously been in the thick of these discussions, I can testify that that little detail is of no consequence to those who are busy giving the ten commandments a good beatdown.

So, while you may not teach strict antinomianism, many on this very forum, in fact, do so.

And no Seventh-day Adventist I know of teaches that the works of man can justify a man in terms of atonement with God. I sure would like to see such a statement from one, though. I'm not saying they don't exist in some form but all one has to do to see that such a belief is in no way Adventist orthodoxy is to point their web browser of choice to adventist.org/beliefs.

It seems to me that if one holds that all but the fourth commandment is morally relevant to Christians, then a satisfactory explanation should be forthcoming as to why, up until about 50 or so years ago, no one outside of a "progressive" seminary study hall would dare suggest that God accidentally did what amounts to dropping a temporary, dispensation-specific, ceremonial statute in the middle of His moral code for the human race.

My Southern Baptist grandmother wouldn't let us kids mow her lawn on Sunday and we all knew exactly why that was.

And I now know why, better than ever:

She thought Sunday was the 7th day of the week, Dan, and so did most other Christians, including us grandkids.

And she wasn't about to have her grandkids trampling the ten commandments underfoot right smack dab on her property.

That's pretty much exactly how she would have put it, too, and nobody in town would've thought that to be controversial at all.

But, then, they didn't have the misinformation superhighway back then.

Sure, the calendar had Saturday in position 7, but the church had Sunday there, and the real authority, TV Guide, had Friday there! - lol

Interestingly enough (at least, to me), my other (maternal) grandmother did, in fact, know which day was the 7th day of the week because she listened to Pastor Joe Crews talk about that and many other interesting Bible topics on the Amazing Facts program over clear-channel AM radio every night. She never took her stand for that truth openly, but when I became an Adventist in 1990, she was not surprised at all, and confided in me that she believed what she had heard. She and her mother were the best Christian role models I had as a child, and I know I'll be reunited with them very soon.

Sorry for the rant/ramble, Dan. Always a pleasure to see you around and about, of course.

.

Hello Barney,

Since the old covenant has been made obsolete, does this leave us with no moral direction? Absolutely not. God made obsolete the old covenant to legally put into place the new covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:6-9; Hebrews 8:6-13) The life of discipleship flows out of the new command, to love one another as He loved us (John 13:34), which Paul refers to as the "law of Christ." (Galatians 6:2) Love fulfills the law (Romans 13:8-10) and out of this single command comes other commands, including references for the moral aspect of 9 of the 10 commandments which are reiterated under the new covenant, yet the command to keep the sabbath day is not binding on Christians under the new covenant.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me. - Acts 14:15
2. You shall make no idols. - 1 John 5:21
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. - 1 Timothy 6:1; James 2:7; James 5:12
4. Keep the sabbath day holy. - Not binding on the Church - Colossians 2:16-17
5. Honor your father and your mother. - Ephesians 6:1-2
6. You shall not murder. - Romans 13:9-10; 1 John 3:15
7. You shall not commit adultery. - Romans 13:9-10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
8. You shall not steal. - Romans 13:9-10; Ephesians 4:28
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. - Romans 13:9-10; Colossians 3:9-10
10. You shall not covet. - Romans 13:9-10; Ephesians 5:3

If sabbath day observance is still required today, then so would the burnt offerings that went along with them. (Leviticus 19:30; 23:2-3; Numbers 28:1-10; 29:39-40; I Chronicles. 23:30-31; II Chronicles 31:2-4; Isaiah 1:13) So no kindling a fire in any of your dwellings on the sabbath. (Exodus 35:3) Every man must remain in his place on the sabbath. (Exodus 16:29) No trading. (Amos 8:5) No marketing. (Nehemiah 10:31; 13:15,19) These were commanded by God to Israel. (Exodus 35:1)

If keeping the weekly sabbath day is still in affect today, then why don't sabbatarians seek to obey ALL that the Lord commanded in regards to it? If keeping the weekly sabbath day is still in effect today, then according to Exodus 31:12-18; 35:1-3; and Numbers 15:32-36, anyone who profaned the Sabbath was put to death and any person who does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from his people. Who is going to enforce that?

I've been in numerous conversations with SDA's and many of them place a huge emphasis on keeping the 10 commandments (with a heavy emphasis on the 4th commandment) for salvation. One particular SDA once made this statement to me below:

The counterfeit Gospel is out there. What is the other Gospel? It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's Law (10 commandments) from the Cross. It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's 10 commandments from the plan of salvation. God’s Law has always been part of the true Gospel of Christ. The counterfeit Gospel does not have it. God's forever Law (the 10 commandments) is the foundation of both the Old and the New Covenant and the very foundation and basis of the true Gospel of Christ.

I have also seen where SDA's teach that those who worship on Sunday instead of Saturday will receive the mark of the beast.

Mark of the Beast

Bible Truth Versus SDA Doctrine - Mark of the Beast

nonsda.org

Take care Barney

 

[Robert Pate]

So it was only after you read the 10th commandment that you started lusting after folk? You weren't lusting before you read the law???

God's law has always been here. It was first given to Adam and Eve. The law is the nature and character of God.

 

[Brakelite]

God's law has always been here. It was first given to Adam and Eve. The law is the nature and character of God.

Couldn't have said it better myself. So you think the nature and character of God was abolished? What happened to Romans 8:29? Hebrews 8:10? Romans 12:2? Colossians 1:27,28? Are they not all about character formation into the image of Christ? I don't see any abolition of the law in the following...
KJV Romans 9:30-32
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

KJV Romans 5:15-21
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

KJV Romans 3:21-22
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference

:KJV Romans 8:3-4
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The law is interwoven throughout scripture, and is integral to the gospel. But what I also see is grace, and a new way of living. What I see is the power of God to transform lives. What I see is the love of God imparted to those in whose heart is the law of God. What I see is Christ in us, the hope of glory. What I see is righteousness by faith in a good of infinite mercy and goodness, empowering His children to obey all His commandments through love, for love is the fulfilling off the law.
So no. I do not see the removal of the law at all. I see grace. Mercy. Goodness. Compassion and love. Not so the law can be overlooked or removed, but that the children of God may be lifted up and seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, a bride that had made herself ready for her Husband. Holy, and without spot or winkle or any such thing.

KJV Romans 6:17-22
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

 

[CadyandZoe]

God's law has always been here. It was first given to Adam and Eve. The law is the nature and character of God.

According to the apostle Paul, Adam and Eve only had one commandment to obey. From that time forward, there wasn't a direct commandment of God until Moses. (Romans 5)

 

[BarneyFife]

Since the old covenant has been made obsolete, does this leave us with no moral direction? Absolutely not. God made obsolete the old covenant to legally put into place the new covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:6-9; Hebrews 8:6-13) The life of discipleship flows out of the new command, to love one another as He loved us (John 13:34), which Paul refers to as the "law of Christ." (Galatians 6:2) Love fulfills the law (Romans 13:8-10) and out of this single command comes other commands, including references for the moral aspect of 9 of the 10 commandments which are reiterated under the new covenant, yet the command to keep the sabbath day is not binding on Christians under the new covenant.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me. - Acts 14:15
2. You shall make no idols. - 1 John 5:21
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. - 1 Timothy 6:1; James 2:7; James 5:12
4. Keep the sabbath day holy. - Not binding on the Church - Colossians 2:16-17
5. Honor your father and your mother. - Ephesians 6:1-2
6. You shall not murder. - Romans 13:9-10; 1 John 3:15
7. You shall not commit adultery. - Romans 13:9-10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
8. You shall not steal. - Romans 13:9-10; Ephesians 4:28
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. - Romans 13:9-10; Colossians 3:9-10
10. You shall not covet. - Romans 13:9-10; Ephesians 5:3

If sabbath day observance is still required today, then so would the burnt offerings that went along with them. (Leviticus 19:30; 23:2-3; Numbers 28:1-10; 29:39-40; I Chronicles. 23:30-31; II Chronicles 31:2-4; Isaiah 1:13) So no kindling a fire in any of your dwellings on the sabbath. (Exodus 35:3) Every man must remain in his place on the sabbath. (Exodus 16:29) No trading. (Amos 8:5) No marketing. (Nehemiah 10:31; 13:15,19) These were commanded by God to Israel. (Exodus 35:1)

If keeping the weekly sabbath day is still in affect today, then why don't sabbatarians seek to obey ALL that the Lord commanded in regards to it? If keeping the weekly sabbath day is still in effect today, then according to Exodus 31:12-18; 35:1-3; and Numbers 15:32-36, anyone who profaned the Sabbath was put to death and any person who does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from his people. Who is going to enforce that?

I'm afraid this just looks like an over-complication to a simple man like me who grew up with 10 simple rules to follow. Granted, they are more finely tuned principles than that from which they stem, some of which you include, but it seems unreasonable to me to have so much to say that goes in so many directions about something God has made so simple: Obey and live; disobey and die.

When I first started discussing this subject with those who objected only to the 7th day Sabbath, the arguments were nowhere near as convoluted as they are today.

I've been in numerous conversations with SDA's and many of them place a huge emphasis on keeping the 10 commandments (with a heavy emphasis on the 4th commandment) for salvation.

It is natural for human nature to resort to an over-emphasis on that which they see as lacking. There was a time not so long ago when the question regarding the 10 commandments was restricted almost entirely to which day God attaches to the 4th one. This is a concern which goes virtually unaddressed by those who oppose the Sabbath. I can only think of two or three members on this forum who still hold that position.

One particular SDA once made this statement to me below:

The counterfeit Gospel is out there. What is the other Gospel? It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's Law (10 commandments) from the Cross. It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's 10 commandments from the plan of salvation. God’s Law has always been part of the true Gospel of Christ. The counterfeit Gospel does not have it. God's forever Law (the 10 commandments) is the foundation of both the Old and the New Covenant and the very foundation and basis of the true Gospel of Christ.

The learning curve for the new duty of defending the entirety of the law has proven rocky and difficult for all of us. Some more than others. And on an online forum that is constituted like this one, the darts that all lead ultimately to the fourth commandment come in every shape, size, and color. It is much like fending off theological guerilla warfare, if I may use the term so loosely.

The wording of the above-quoted statement is decidedly awkward to my way of thinking, although not entirely without merit. And, speaking of merit, as awkward as it is, I hardly think it could be honestly construed as urging that the works of man can atone for his own sin.

I have also seen where SDA's teach that those who worship on Sunday instead of Saturday will receive the mark of the beast.

Mark of the Beast

Bible Truth Versus SDA Doctrine - Mark of the Beast

nonsda.org

You're certainly entitled to present your case to your own liking, my friend, but I would caution against using websites that are purposely designed to smear Adventism for sources. Nonsda.org is pointedly hostile toward the church and is not at all careful in aggregating its content. Right here on this forum, a member used a copy-and-paste from the website which had some of the most embarrassing collection of glaring errors I have ever witnessed. One quote from a book by Moses Hull cited Mrs. White as its author, another similar occurrence by E. J. Waggoner, and another complete and utter disaster of a misquote regarding the mark of the beast as being from a book Mrs. White wrote about the Sermon On The Mount called "Thoughts From The Mount Of Blessing" which, to my recollection, has little if anything to say about the book of Revelation. I didn't read the link you provided, understandably (I hope). Even when they are accurate, they're of no consequence, except to excite the suspicions of folks who would generally rather believe the worst than investigate matters for themselves.

Since the specter of Mrs. White seems to always be raised in these discussions, I might as well make an attempt to ease tensions by noting that she was ever careful to stipulate that the mark of the beast itself does not exist, historically, until the observance of Sunday as a duty to God has been mandated globally and everyone has had a chance to see that it is at that time to be seen in stark contrast to the true 7th day Sabbath of the 4th commandment. Somewhat unlike today, this distinction will then be seen in the character of the various adherents every bit as much as the difference that exists between one day and another.

In speaking of the past, it is well within the realm of possibility that those who have gone down to a Sunday-keeping grave will outnumber literal Sabbatarians among those who are eventually saved and populate the eternal Kingdom of God.

As to the present, we are a spectacle...

In her day, Mrs. White was well-respected by society, in general, and by religious folks who had no ax to grind. The editor's obit of her in the St. Helena, CA newspaper is particularly eye-opening. All who wish to sincerely investigate will find this to be the case. I used to be very timid about defending her, but I'm too old and tired to play either that or the zealous game now.

Blessings abounding to you

.

 

[BarneyFife]

According to the apostle Paul, Adam and Eve only had one commandment to obey. From that time forward, there wasn't a direct commandment of God until Moses. (Romans 5)

In eating of the forbidden tree, they broke the first commandment, whether you like to draw from 10 or 2. And, in breaking one, we break them all. "Every word that proceeds..."

.

 

[CadyandZoe]

In eating of the forbidden tree, they broke the first commandment, whether you like to draw from 10 or 2. And, in breaking one, we break them all. "Every word that proceeds..."

.

While it may be true that eating from the forbidden tree was equivalent to disobeying the first of the Ten Commandments, it does follow, therefore, that God gave Adam and Eve the Ten Commandments. God never specifically and explicitly commanded Adam and Eve "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Instead, they disobeyed the specific command: "thou shalt not eat from the tree in the center of the garden." So although they disobeyed an explicit command of God; they were unfamiliar with the Ten Commandments.

Paul argues that death reigned between the time of Adam and Moses, even though mankind was unfamiliar with explicit commands coming from God. In his epistle to the Romans he argues, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." In other words, God never gave an explicit command to anyone who lived between the time of Adam and the time of Moses.

 

[Brakelite]

God never gave an explicit command to anyone who lived between the time of Adam and the time of Moses.

KJV Genesis 4:5-7
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Surely God is a God of justice. Shall He condemn anyone without them knowing good from evil? ...
KJV Genesis 4:8
8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

the first conflict on earth between brothers. Shall God curse Cain of Cain didn't know murder was wrong?

 

[CadyandZoe]

KJV Genesis 4:5-7
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Surely God is a God of justice. Shall He condemn anyone without them knowing good from evil? ...
KJV Genesis 4:8
8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

the first conflict on earth between brothers. Shall God curse Cain of Cain didn't know murder was wrong?

For some reason we get the wrong impression about morality, believing that right and wrong didn't exist until God laid down the rules. This isn't true at all. Cain inherently knew that murder was wrong. He didn't need a commandment from God informing him that it was wrong.

In his epistle to the Romans, Paul argues that the Gentiles already have a well-developed idea of right and wrong even though they don't live under the Law.

In the following passage, Paul postulates the case of the Gentiles who didn't have the law but knew right and wrong anyway. They are a "law unto themselves" he says, showing that the law is written on their hearts.

Romans 2:14-16

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.​

If I am reading Paul correctly, he would say that Cain had the law written on his heart and that he should have known better than to murder his brother.

 

[BarneyFife]

While it may be true that eating from the forbidden tree was equivalent to disobeying the first of the Ten Commandments, it does follow, therefore, that God gave Adam and Eve the Ten Commandments. God never specifically and explicitly commanded Adam and Eve "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Instead, they disobeyed the specific command: "thou shalt not eat from the tree in the center of the garden." So although they disobeyed an explicit command of God; they were unfamiliar with the Ten Commandments.

Paul argues that death reigned between the time of Adam and Moses, even though mankind was unfamiliar with explicit commands coming from God. In his epistle to the Romans he argues, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." In other words, God never gave an explicit command to anyone who lived between the time of Adam and the time of Moses.

Consulting the context of nearly any of these law loophole proof texts readily shows the error of their misuse.

Just one verse before the "death reigned" text, Romans 5:13 clearly says that "sin is not taken into account where there is no law."

Unfortunately for the case you are trying to make, sin (by the name "sin," at least) is taken into account for the first time in Genesis 4 with God's judgment on Cain's murder of Abel.

Not to mention that the position that "God never gave an explicit command to anyone who lived between the time of Adam and the time of Moses" is an attempted argument from silence that even fails as such since God himself says in Genesis 26:5 that "Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.”

.

 

[BarneyFife]

For some reason we get the wrong impression about morality, believing that right and wrong didn't exist until God laid down the rules. This isn't true at all. Cain inherently knew that murder was wrong. He didn't need a commandment from God informing him that it was wrong.

In his epistle to the Romans, Paul argues that the Gentiles already have a well-developed idea of right and wrong even though they don't live under the Law.

In the following passage, Paul postulates the case of the Gentiles who didn't have the law but knew right and wrong anyway. They are a "law unto themselves" he says, showing that the law is written on their hearts.

Romans 2:14-16

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.​

If I am reading Paul correctly, he would say that Cain had the law written on his heart and that he should have known better than to murder his brother.

God has always been trying to do His New Covenant work on men's hearts, but to assume that everyone knows right from wrong intuitively begs the question as to why law is ever given, and why Paul says in Romans 5 that sin is not taken into account where there is no law.

Moral law is not separate from morality. There is no way around that. But because of the societal trends toward individual liberty and entitlement in the West beginning in the '60s that have now crept into the church, even to the point that conservatives are now spearheading the charge, folks inexplicably like to jumble up the meaning of "law" with the help of twisted interpretations of Paul that Peter specifically warned against.

The only truly bad "law" in the Bible is the kind spoken of in Romans 7 & 8—the law of sin and death—and it has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments, even when it's referred to in the same sentence or paragraph. It's a study in contrast.

All the hostility that exists today toward the Ten Commandments, all ten of them, and those who value them didn't exist among Christians 50 years ago.

It's truly bewildering.

.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Consulting the context of nearly any of these law loophole proof texts readily shows the error of their misuse.

Just one verse before the "death reigned" text, Romans 5:13 clearly says that "sin is not taken into account where there is no law."

Unfortunately for the case you are trying to make, sin (by the name "sin," at least) is taken into account for the first time in Genesis 4 with God's judgment on Cain's murder of Abel.

Not to mention that the position that "God never gave an explicit command to anyone who lived between the time of Adam and the time of Moses" is an attempted argument from silence that even fails as such since God himself says in Genesis 26:5 that "Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.”

.

I agree. And a good point about Genesis 25. Genesis 4 seems a bit of a stretch, though, yes?

God punished Cain for murdering his brother. But do we find a passage containing God's proscription against murder before Genesis 9? I don't think we can argue that Cain violated a Law.

But looking at Genesis 9, it would be a stretch to conclude that God made a law against murder in that context. Wouldn't it? At best, I argued in the past that God made a prescription for the death penalty and the role of government. It seems that God wants Noah and the human race to begin to make laws of their own and when they make a law against murder -- the punishment should be death. (Also, I should also note that God's punishment of Cain for murder wasn't death, but banishment and loss of livelihood.)

But okay. Let me provisionally set aside my own point of view for a second. I want to return to Romans 5. I don't think Paul is unaware of Genesis 9 or Genesis 25, especially since Genesis says that Abraham obeyed God's laws. So I am left to wonder why Paul rests his argument on the absence of laws.

Perhaps there is something more to the concept of "accounting" that we need to discover. Maybe Paul's understanding of "Law" includes the courts, where guilt or innocence is accounted.

Comments?

 

[CadyandZoe]

God has always been trying to do His New Covenant work on men's hearts, but to assume that everyone knows right from wrong intuitively begs the question as to why law is ever given, and why Paul says in Romans 5 that sin is not taken into account where there is no law.

Well, that gets back to my earlier comments. I am wondering aloud whether a sin is ever "taken into account" outside of a court setting. Isn't knowing right from wrong different than being held accountable for transgression?

The only truly bad "law" in the Bible is the kind spoken of in Romans 7 & 8—the law of sin and death—and it has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments, even when it's referred to in the same sentence or paragraph. It's a study in contrast.

I am aware that Paul says that the Law is spiritual, good, and holy. So I agree with your assessment that there is not a truly bad law in God's Law.

Nonetheless, one must remember that the Law of God was the basis of the Mt. Sinai Covenant. The covenant was established at Mt. Horeb where the people met with God and the elders told Moses, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do!” This event was unique to Jacob and the sons of Israel. The people made an exclusive contract with God, not binding on any other family or nation.

And so the question we face as Christians is this. What aspects of the Law are binding on Israel alone by virtue of the fact that it was contained in an exclusive contract and what aspects of the Law are binding on all human beings? For some of the laws, the answer is easy, but for other laws, the answer is a bit more difficult. It makes sense for Christians to divide the law into helpful categories such as "moral law", "civil law", "religious law" and etc. Most Christians, I believe would agree that we are obligated to obey the laws dealing with the judgment of right and wrong of human action: what is just and fair between human beings; what is the proper way to relate to God as our creator. These are the issues that Christians should never neglect. But what about dietary rules or clothing?

All the hostility that exists today toward the Ten Commandments, all ten of them, and those who value them didn't exist among Christians 50 years ago.

It's truly bewildering.

I'm sorry to hear about Christian hostility toward the Ten Commandments.

At the same time, have you ever wondered why some groups seem to elevate 10 commandments above all the rest? I truly don't know.

 

[marks]

Just one verse before the "death reigned" text, Romans 5:13 clearly says that "sin is not taken into account where there is no law."

Unfortunately for the case you are trying to make, sin (by the name "sin," at least) is taken into account for the first time in Genesis 4 with God's judgment on Cain's murder of Abel.

My translation states this passage as "sin is not imputed where there is no law", which to me says, "sin is not judicially counted against you when God hasn't given a law that you've broken.

Sin remains sin, and has consequences. Those consequences may be here in this life, as perhaps God corrects us, or perhaps human authorities punish us, or we harm ourselves, or whatever it may be. Then there is the consequence in the judgment after this life is over.

Romans 5:10-15 KJV
10) For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11) And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15) But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

This passage to me speaks of the temporal consequence of sin - death - contrasted to the judicial consequence of sin - condemnation. Condemnation came to all through the one offense, Adam's disobedience. Death came to all through all of their sin.

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

I agree. And a good point about Genesis 25. Genesis 4 seems a bit of a stretch, though, yes?

God punished Cain for murdering his brother. But do we find a passage containing God's proscription against murder before Genesis 9? I don't think we can argue that Cain violated a Law.

But looking at Genesis 9, it would be a stretch to conclude that God made a law against murder in that context. Wouldn't it? At best, I argued in the past that God made a prescription for the death penalty and the role of government. It seems that God wants Noah and the human race to begin to make laws of their own and when they make a law against murder -- the punishment should be death. (Also, I should also note that God's punishment of Cain for murder wasn't death, but banishment and loss of livelihood.)

But okay. Let me provisionally set aside my own point of view for a second. I want to return to Romans 5. I don't think Paul is unaware of Genesis 9 or Genesis 25, especially since Genesis says that Abraham obeyed God's laws. So I am left to wonder why Paul rests his argument on the absence of laws.

Perhaps there is something more to the concept of "accounting" that we need to discover. Maybe Paul's understanding of "Law" includes the courts, where guilt or innocence is accounted.

Comments?

As long as we're letting our guards down, as it were, I would concede that if I were to err (which is certainly likely to some degree) it would be on the side of caution, perhaps otherwise perceived by many as legalism. Not in the sense that I would consciously give way to any notion that my own works could merit anything towards redemption, but I would rather God reject me for over-zealously attempting to be obedient to Him while doing no harm to others than being self-indulgent in some unnecessary convenience or luxury.

My dad was a career Navy man and I'm an Air Force vet having worked mostly in defense industry manufacturing until I retired so regulations are not a hard sell for me.

But to your observations, I'm not sure why God makes a point of mentioning the sanctity of life in His impromptu inauguration of post-flood society. It's always been a bit of an awkward literary object to me, and it might be worth some deeper study.

As I said in another post, moral law and morality are so tightly linked in my mind (the endless spirit vs. letter debates render me comatose), That Genesis 4 is not a stretch for me at all, really. By itself, I wouldn't object to other interpretations, per se, but it is called "sin" and is called to account, so it's hard to divorce from Romans 5:13 for me conceptually, at least. I suspect that what Paul's understanding of "law" includes (or, at least, what the Holy Spirit was trying to say through him) is something we might be studying for eternity and never exhaust.

_________

Bluntly put, I'm way past my honeymoon phase with God. I'm not looking to see how much I can retain of what I'm comfortable with and still manage to find enough favor with Him to be saved. I've been married for nearly 40 years and I have the blessed privilege of seeing what self-denying, self-sacrificing, other-centered love between two created beings can grow into. I'm not settling for anything less with God because I want an abundant entrance into His presence, and I want to influence as many others as I possibly can to have the same rewarding experience, This comes across to many as self-exalting, but I know I'm the chief sinner around here, and pretty much anywhere else I go.

While we're at it, I think I was a little short with you in another thread about COVID-19 treatment. I'm sorry about that. I've done some learning since then and I feel that, as is all too often the case, I'm too closed-minded about what others are doing their best to learn and share about these things.

 

[marks]

Bluntly put, I'm way past my honeymoon phase with God. I'm not looking to see how much I can retain of what I'm comfortable with and still manage to find enough favor with Him to be saved. I've been married for nearly 40 years and I have the blessed privilege of seeing what self-denying, self-sacrificing, other-centered love between two created beings can grow into. I'm not settling for anything less with God because I want an abundant entrance into His presence, and I want to influence as many others as I possibly can to have the same rewarding experience, This comes across to many as self-exalting, but I know I'm the chief sinner around here, and pretty much anywhere else I go.

The only little bit I can add to these very edifying words that I relate to so fully is that I've come to see the foolishness of hiding from God, and want nothing more than an authentic at every level relationship with Him.

Though I've only been married 34 years.

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

@marks and @CadyandZoe,

I'm gearing up to leave for a badly-needed 5-night excursion to Myrtle Beach (it's our secret hiding place from the world) on Sunday, so I may not be able to give your thoughtful replies the attention they deserve right away, but I'll do what I can..

 

[marks]

@marks and @CadyandZoe,

I'm gearing up to leave for a badly-needed 5-night excursion to Myrtle Beach (it's our secret hiding place from the world) on Sunday, so I may not be able to give your thoughtful replies the attention they deserve right away, but I'll do what I can..

That sounds really nice!! Enjoy!

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

As may or may not be obvious, we're getting as much preparation done as we can today so we can enjoy the blessings of the Sabbath and get to bed early tomorrow night (shameless 4th commandment plug). I like to be on the road well before sunrise (Thanks, Dad ).

.