Jethro Bodine
Member
It's Vine's way.Have it your way, Jethro.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
“The Law of Sin”
- Thread starter netchaplain
- Start date
There are two ways that I could go here.
Remove privileges or move the thread to Apologetics and Theology.
By "remove privileges" what I mean is that upon review a decision would be made to impose a penalty.
For now, the thread is CLOSED while I deliberate the choice.
Remove privileges or move the thread to Apologetics and Theology.
By "remove privileges" what I mean is that upon review a decision would be made to impose a penalty.
FOS Sticky said:
For now, the thread is CLOSED while I deliberate the choice.
I've moved this thread to the Apologetics and Theology forum but not because I want to ignore what I see as a problem. In Focus on Scripture the general rule of thumb is to stay more focused on the Word of God than on what somebody else is saying.
Some of this back and forth stuff loses me because when I read what is being said it seems like there is much agreement going on. Perhaps there are things that one or another Member has said in other threads, other discussions, that I'm not part of?
In any case, I would like to remind all participants to listen first, to pick their ground well prior to posting and to make the effort to stick within the topic first brought by the OP.
Cordially,
Sparrowhawke
Some of this back and forth stuff loses me because when I read what is being said it seems like there is much agreement going on. Perhaps there are things that one or another Member has said in other threads, other discussions, that I'm not part of?
In any case, I would like to remind all participants to listen first, to pick their ground well prior to posting and to make the effort to stick within the topic first brought by the OP.
Cordially,
Sparrowhawke
Here is just a little hint: The law was not the first covenant.
The term used in Hebrews - For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Hebrews 8:7
This is a legal phrase that is used. The writer of the book of Hebrews is writing to those who understand the use of it.
The reference signifies the one that was replaced by the next was done so because it was faulty.
as he goes on to say -
...not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
The law, that was added to the Covenant of Abraham was not the first covenant. It was a temporary part of the greater Covenant of Abraham.
The covenant of Abraham is the covenant we are grafted into in Christ. We are now part of that Commonwealth. The commonwealth of Israel.
It is almost as if you are somehow trying to justify what you are saying, by calling the law of Moses the "first covenant".
It's not. It just shows that you really don't know what is being said here.
All scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness.
The bible is a rich and wonderful treasure from the Lord.
However -
Abraham learned God's law and commandments directly from The Lord himself, because he walked with Him.
Abraham obeyed God and accomplished what the Lord sent him to do.
Most of the Church didn't have any scriptures.
The uneducated gentiles that Paul was sent to, couldn't even understand nor read Hebrew.
Yet they were rich in Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit.
JLB
Jethro Bodine
Member
Paul said you can not change an established covenant. That's why the first covenant, the covenant of Moses, is a separate and additional covenant, not an addendum to God's covenant with Abraham.
"13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." (Hebrews 8:13 NASB)
If that's true, then the author is saying God's covenant with Abraham was what was first and made obsolete by the New Covenant, and is growing old and ready to disappear. And remember, he can't be talking about a part of the covenant of Abraham because Paul said you can not change an existing covenant.
You have failed to communicate what this has to do with the law.
Last edited:
Jethro Bodine
Member
The following is as true for the Jew as it is for the gentile. There's no reason to redefine 'law' for the gentile:
4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:4-6 NASB)
The way of the law arouses sin in the unbelieving gentile the same way it does in the unbelieving Jew. Everybody who's still 'married' to husband 'sin nature' obeys the dictates of that husband, with the law acting as the marriage license that keeps them bound to that husband. But in Christ, we are released from the authority of husband 'sin nature' (because he is put to death by the cross), and as a result we are released from the power of the law to keep us in marital bond to that husband. We are now legally free to be bound to new husband Jesus, the Holy Spirit acting as the marriage license that keeps us bound to his authority.
There is simply no reason to redefine 'the law' for the gentile.
A
agua.
Guest
Gday Jethro ( I must say your avatar reminds me of "No Country for Old Men" and I cringe
) . Would "slave " be a better representation of the relationship between a person and either sin or Christ ?
Jethro Bodine
Member
Hello, agua.Gday Jethro ( I must say your avatar reminds me of "No Country for Old Men" and I cringe
I chose my avatar for the shock/cringe value. Besides, except for the hair, the chiseled features, the athletic frame, and the stern countenance, I pretty much look like him.
I figure we Christians ought to be as determined and unmovable with the gospel as he was with his murderous agenda.
I think that's exactly the point Paul is making. But in our modern Western societies we don't see the marital relationship as the master/slave relationship that God sees it as. So we have to rely on what the Bible itself says about husband/wife relationships to understand that he is indeed talking about a 'master/slave' relationship.
Paul is saying that just as a woman, by law, must stay with and submit to her husband, like a slave to her master, so we also were once joined in legal marital union to husband 'sin nature'. The law acting as the legal document that held us in that relationship. Translate that marital relationship between 'sin nature/person' into the Biblical language of 'Lord/servant' (1 Peter 3:1 NASB, 1 Peter 3:5-6 NASB) and I think we have exactly what you are suggesting--a master/slave relationship between the sin nature and a person.
So, when a person ends their marriage to first husband 'sin nature' through the death of sin nature (marriage ends at death) they are then legally free to enter into the same marital 'master/slave' relationship with new husband Christ that they had with sinful flesh. This time the marital contract that keeps them bound to their husband/master is the Holy Spirit. And the husband's desires they submit to in this new relationship are the holy and righteous desires of Christ which produces in them the holy offspring of righteousness works, not the dead works of the flesh old husband sin nature, by authority of the law, produced in them.
But to directly support what you're saying, Paul had just been talking about this very same thing in the previous chapter using the actual 'master/slave' analogy you're speaking about:
"6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." (Romans 6:6-11 NASB)
So when he gets to chapter 7, he makes this very same point about our old relationship to sin, but this time using the picture of husband/wife (being analogous to 'master/slave'). He uses the law of marriage, which he says his audience knows well, to express what he just said about our old slave relationship to sin in chapter 6. Any slave who's master has died is set free from the legal contract of slavery they once had with that master and are legally free to be joined to a new master.
Last edited:
Jethro Bodine
Member
The point of this being, what we died to is the authority of the law to hold us in sin. IOW, we died to the authority of the law to hold us in sin and condemn us as sinners. But this 'dying to what once bound us' has been misunderstood to mean we no longer have to submit to the holy and righteous requirements of the law.
And to further confuse the point, the church uses the end of the way for the holy and righteous and eternal requirements for worship to be fulfilled as proof of that. Not knowing that those requirements for worship did not go away. They still need to be 'upheld'. It's just that they now get fulfilled and upheld in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the letter of the law. Example:
"...Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast (of Unleavened Bread), not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (1 Corinthians 5:7-8 NASB parenthesis mine)
See, the requirements for Passover, and the Feast of Unleavend Bread did not go away. Those requirements still exist for the people of God. The old way they were kept is what 'went away'. (There are other examples in the NT). Paul explains this 'new way' of serving here at the end of the 'master/slave', 'husband/wife' passages we've been talking about:
6 ...now we have been released from the (authority of the) Law (to hold us in marital union with sin), having died to that by which we were bound, so that (now) we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness (the old way) of the letter (of the law)." (Romans 7:6 NASB parenthesis mine--see context of passage)
So it's okay to say that all of us in Christ--Jew and gentile alike--have died to the law of Moses (summarized in the Ten Commandments). There's no reason to redefine law as meaning something other than the very law of Moses. The fact that the authority of the sinful nature is what died on the cross, not the requirements of the law, is why it's okay.
And to further confuse the point, the church uses the end of the way for the holy and righteous and eternal requirements for worship to be fulfilled as proof of that. Not knowing that those requirements for worship did not go away. They still need to be 'upheld'. It's just that they now get fulfilled and upheld in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the letter of the law. Example:
"...Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast (of Unleavened Bread), not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (1 Corinthians 5:7-8 NASB parenthesis mine)
See, the requirements for Passover, and the Feast of Unleavend Bread did not go away. Those requirements still exist for the people of God. The old way they were kept is what 'went away'. (There are other examples in the NT). Paul explains this 'new way' of serving here at the end of the 'master/slave', 'husband/wife' passages we've been talking about:
6 ...now we have been released from the (authority of the) Law (to hold us in marital union with sin), having died to that by which we were bound, so that (now) we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness (the old way) of the letter (of the law)." (Romans 7:6 NASB parenthesis mine--see context of passage)
So it's okay to say that all of us in Christ--Jew and gentile alike--have died to the law of Moses (summarized in the Ten Commandments). There's no reason to redefine law as meaning something other than the very law of Moses. The fact that the authority of the sinful nature is what died on the cross, not the requirements of the law, is why it's okay.
Last edited:
Deborah13
Member
In both of these instances I believe you are wrong about what the Law of Moses says.
In at least one circumstance that I know of, the wife was free to return to her father's house.
A slave was not free leave at any time that I know of but I could be wrong about that.
A slave was not freed from that contract, they were property and passed on as inheritance.
A wife was never property that could be passed on by inheritance.
If this were true, then your doctrine teaches that the Children of Israel were somehow disconnected from the Abrahamic Covenant.
The law was added to the Covenant because of transgressions.
Paul clearly states that the law was not against the promise.
It seems, by this statement you would say just about anything to validate your doctrine that teaches Gentiles were under the law of Moses.
JLB
Jethro Bodine
Member
I wasn't referring to some certain law of masters and slaves in regard to Romans 6, and I won't know if Paul was either until someone can cite the law or laws in the law of Moses that show that he was. What I do know in the law was that a slave was to be set free after a period of time (seven years?), but they could remain slaves if they wanted to.
Where we see Paul make his appeal to them having knowledge of the law, whether he means the actual law of Moses, or civil law, is when he begins his analogy of marriage. The point being, and which is still true even to this day, is that a woman is only bound in submission to her husband as long as he is alive. After he dies she is free to be bound in submission to another. And depending on who/what she is bound to determines what her children will look like. Those still bound to the flesh produce fruit of the flesh. Those for whom the authority of 'flesh' has died (through death of flesh) and who then join themselves to Christ produce fruit of the Spirit.
The righteous requirements in the law, that were before the law was added, and remain intact, now that the law has vanished away.
Here is an example of what I mean.
It is a righteous requirement today to stone someone to death, who picks up sticks to make a fire on the Sabbath. No!
Is it a righteous requirement to sacrifice animals for our sin? No!
Is it a righteous requirement to love God and love our neighbor. Yes!
Is it a righteous requirement to not steal? Yes!
Is it a righteous requirement to not bow down to idols? Yes!
Is it a righteous requirement to not covet? Yes!
Is it a righteous requirement to not eat pork? No!
Is it a sin to eat pork? No!
JLB
Jethro Bodine
Member
No, because the first covenant, the covenant of the law of Moses, was added alongside the covenant previously established with Abraham and his offspring.
It had to be added alongside, not incorporated within the covenant with Abraham because Paul makes the very specific point that it is impossible to alter a covenant already in force.
Right. And that's true because he says you can not change an existing covenant. But as it is, you say the law of Moses was added right into the Abrahamic covenant. If THAT were true, then the promise would be by law, not by promise, the very thing you're suggesting my doctrine does. Think about it.
This has nothing to do with whether believing gentiles were under the law of Moses. That's not the deciding factor for if believing gentiles uphold the fundamental requirements of the law of Moses by their faith (which you, oddly enough, do seem to agree with now).
What we are seeing here is another demonstration of how the church will ignore anything plainly written in the Bible to service their misguided fear that somehow the mere utterance of the word 'law' means you're trying to put them back under the letter of the law.
Just say the word 'law' in the church and the eyes go big, they take in a big gasp of air, and they can't hear another word you say after that, no matter how articulate and sensitive you are in your speaking (I mean that in general of course--some do hear). It's a peculiar phenomenon. Almost laughable, except that it has led to other serious, misguided doctrines in the church summarized in 'I'm saved and there's nothing you or I can do about that'. And as long as the church can only see the requirement for 'works', and 'law', in salvation as only meaning that we are justified by those works then those misguided doctrines of grace will continue.
Last edited:
Jethro Bodine
Member
It is a righteous requirement of law that the person who does not enter into God's ordained Sabbath Rest die. That remains to this day. It did not go anywhere. The way that requirement was fulfilled is what went away.
It is a righteous requirement of law that sin be atoned through blood. That remains to this day. It did not go anywhere. The way that requirement was fulfilled is what went away.
The old way to uphold that requirement of law, the way of the flesh, that is what went away.
The old way to uphold that requirement of law, the way of the flesh, that is what went away.
The old way to uphold that requirement of law, the way of the flesh, that is what went away.
The old way to uphold that requirement of law, the way of the flesh, that is what went away.
It is a righteous requirement of law that the person who 'eats' unclean things will be cut off and unfit for manifest fellowship with God and his people. That remains to this day. It did not go anywhere. The way that requirement was fulfilled is what went away.
"...we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:6 NASB)
"31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." (Romans 3:31 NASB)
.
Last edited:
ezrider
Member
Once upon a time I would have agreed with you, but I no longer see it that way. Obedience to the law of Moses has taught us our sinful nature, but we as individuals define for ourselves what is sin. In this day and age there are many who define things as sin that are not part of the law of Moses: smoking is a sin, watching television, listening to certain types of music..... etc. All of these things we have defined as sinful for ourselves and for others, and then do we obey them in the face of death. The scripture tells us that what so ever is not of faith is a sin.
The is no such thing as The law of Moses old way, and the law of Moses new way.
The law of Moses required that a person who violated the sabbath law as prescribed by the law of Moses be put to death.
14 You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:14-15
The is no new law of Moses, that has a different set of requirements.
I know we serve in the newness of the Spirit, because we are not under the law, but under Grace.
Putting someone to death for not keeping the Sabbath is not a righteous requirement today.
Loving God, and loving your neighbor is a righteous requirement.
Not stealing is a righteous requirement.
Sacrificing animals is not a righteous requirement.
There is only one law of Moses.
JLB
Jethro Bodine
Member
How is 'do not steal', for example, not what defines the sin in the law that we die by?
"I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.”8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." (Romans 7: NASB)
Sin is actually what kills us. The law is only the instrument through which that sin is identified and aroused in fallen man.
I think what you want to say is the futile attempt to keep the law of Moses. For if we could keep it we would not be having this discussion.
Not sure what point you're trying to make.
Jethro Bodine
Member
If you mean there is no such thing as a new and old way to uphold and fulfill the requirements of the law of Moses, I showed you plain examples from the NT that prove there is.
I'm not saying there is a new law of Moses.
I'm saying what Jesus and Paul said, that the requirements of the law of Moses get fulfilled and upheld in this New Covenant, not abolished or nullified. And that they get fulfilled and upheld, not nullified, in the new way of the Spirit and faith in Jesus Christ. To argue the point is to argue with the plain words of scripture. What you need to do is not ignore the plain words of scripture, but seek to understand how that is possible.
Does that service in the newness of the Spirit violate, or uphold the law of Moses? What did Paul say? You know the answer.
Death for not obeying God is a just and holy and righteous requirement of the law of Moses. That just and holy and righteous requirement did not 'go away'. Everyone who disobeys the gospel message and refuses to enter into the Sabbath Rest ordained by God, Jesus Christ, will be rightly and justly judged in the judgment. The penalty for not 'keeping' God's Sabbath Rest is still very much a righteous requirement that is still very much in force in this New Covenant.
I'm not saying otherwise.
I'm simply saying what the Bible says, that the law of Moses is not abolished in this New Covenant, it is fulfilled and upheld in this New Covenant. Do you want to argue the point with Jesus and Paul?...
"17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17 NASB)
...but you say the law of Moses doesn't get fulfilled because it has 'passed away'. Are we listen to your doctrine over and above these plain words of Jesus?
"31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." (Romans 3:31 NASB)
...but you say we DON'T establish the law through faith in this New Covenant. Why do you think we should listen to you and ignore these plain words of scripture?
No Jethro, that is not what I mean. Those are your words that you added.
There is one Moses law. You are required to keep all of it, down to every jot and tittle.
If you keep 99.9% and fail to keep one part, you are cursed.
There is no new way to keep Moses law.
The law of Moses was added, till the Seed should come.
We are not under the law, but under Grace.
Under the law, if your neighbor violates the sabbath, he or she is to be put to death.
JLB