“The Law of Sin”

[Jethro Bodine]

This is where we see it differently. I don't see a 'new' way of faith. David was both justified and sanctified by faith and grace, not the Law. As were the prophets, Abraham,Ruth, Boaz, etc. etc

Faith is new in the sense that it was openly and plainly revealed in the coming of Christ. Paul talks about this newness of the grace of faith when he speaks of the 'newness of the Spirit' (Romans 7:6 NASB), even though you and I both know faith and the Holy Spirit are not new to mankind.

"This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed deathand has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." (2 Timothy 1:9-10 NASB)

I see God's love in the laws, in Moses' Law, in His faith, grace, and mercy, not just in the NT but in the OT, too. I didn't get to that place by obeying laws, I got there by His grace and mercy towards me.

That's not the argument.

The argument is the grace and faith you received in Christ fulfills the requirements of God in the law of Moses....in the new way of that grace and faith, not in the old way of the letter of the law.

Romans 3:21-24 NASB
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

What's different? How God's righteousness is manifested.... in Jesus Christ.

Now the question is, "how does Christ, and his righteousness, manifest himself in us?"

That manifestation of Christ in us does not violate the requirements of the law, it upholds them:

"22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23 NASB)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Please look again. I quoted from the NASB, the version you use. It says, 'the requirement'. I looked it up in the Greek, it is singular, one requirement. James explains the requirement of the Law. It is obeying every jot and tittle or it has been broken.

Here, this will clear it up. This is from the Vines link in the middle of the page at http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1345&t=KJV:

"...Rom 2:26, RV, "ordinances of the Law" (i.e., righteous requirements enjoined by the Law); so Rom 8:4, "ordinance of the Law," i.e., collectively, the precepts of the Law, all that it demands as right; in Hbr 9:1,10, ordinances connected with the tabernacle ritual..."

Again, I've never looked at Vine's entry about this, but it agrees with what I've been saying. Not that Vine's is 100% correct all the time, but I post it in the hope it helps you on this subject.

(Romans 2:26 is where I key off the term 'requirements of the law', not Romans 8:4, but the Romans 8 verse is where people know the term and insist it's not referring to what I'm saying. They insist the term 'requirementS' of the law simply doesn't exist in the attempt to defeat my doctrine. And I'm like, "What? It's right there in Romans 2". And now I am aware of the Revelation uses, too.)

 

[JLB]

Here, this will clear it up. This is from the Vines link in the middle of the page at http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1345&t=KJV:

"...Rom 2:26, RV, "ordinances of the Law" (i.e., righteous requirements enjoined by the Law); so Rom 8:4, "ordinance of the Law," i.e., collectively, the precepts of the Law, all that it demands as right; in Hbr 9:1,10, ordinances connected with the tabernacle ritual..."

Again, I've never looked at Vine's entry about this, but it agrees with what I've been saying. Not that Vine's is 100% correct all the time, but I post it in the hope it helps you on this subject.

(Romans 2:26 is where I key off the term 'requirements of the law', not Romans 8:4, but the Romans 8 verse is where people know the term and insist it's not referring to what I'm saying. They insist the term 'requirementS' of the law simply doesn't exist in the attempt to defeat my doctrine. And I'm like, "What? It's right there in Romans 2". And now I am aware of the Revelation uses, too.)

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? Romans 2:26

My question to you, again; Are uncircumcised Gentiles under the law of Moses and required to uphold it.
40 Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years--on that very same day--it came to pass that all the armies of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. 42 It is a night of solemn observance to the Lord for bringing them out of the land of Egypt. This is that night of the Lord, a solemn observance for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. 43 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. 44 But every man's servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. 45 A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. 46 In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." Exodus 12:40-49


I will answer it for you, since you won't; The answer is No!
If uncircumcised gentiles were not obligated to keep the requirements of Moses law then, why would you teach that Gentiles who turn to Christ are required to uphold the law of Moses?

The law of Moses vanished away at the cross.

The righteous requirements that were IN the law, and were God's law before Moses is what we as Christians are obligated to walk in.

Obedience: If we love God we will obey His command to love our neighbor.

For this is the Law and the Prophets. The Law [Torah] which includes Genesis, and the Prophets.

For we are not under the law but under Grace.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

My question to you, again; Are uncircumcised Gentiles under the law of Moses and required to uphold it.
[...]
I will answer it for you, since you won't; The answer is No!

See post 119.

The righteous requirements that were IN the law, and were God's law before Moses is what we as Christians are obligated to walk in.

Oh, I see, now. Faith upholds the requirements of the law of Moses, not the letter of the law of Moses. I wonder if that's what Paul meant when he said this:

"31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." (Romans 3:31 NASB)
"...we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:6 NASB)

I'll have to add that to my doctrine.

 

[Deborah13]

Here, this will clear it up. This is from the Vines link in the middle of the page at http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1345&t=KJV:

"...Rom 2:26, RV, "ordinances of the Law" (i.e., righteous requirements enjoined by the Law); so Rom 8:4, "ordinance of the Law," i.e., collectively, the precepts of the Law, all that it demands as right; in Hbr 9:1,10, ordinances connected with the tabernacle ritual..."

Again, I've never looked at Vine's entry about this, but it agrees with what I've been saying. Not that Vine's is 100% correct all the time, but I post it in the hope it helps you on this subject.

(Romans 2:26 is where I key off the term 'requirements of the law', not Romans 8:4, but the Romans 8 verse is where people know the term and insist it's not referring to what I'm saying. They insist the term 'requirementS' of the law simply doesn't exist in the attempt to defeat my doctrine. And I'm like, "What? It's right there in Romans 2". And now I am aware of the Revelation uses, too.)

Once again, I agree with Vine's. What does Vine's say......
so Rom 8:4, "ordinance of the Law," i.e., collectively, the precepts of the Law, all that it demands as right;
ordinance = singular
precepts = plural

• pre·cept [ pr sèpt ]

1. principle: a rule, instruction, or principle that guides somebody's actions, especially one that guides moral behavior
2. warrant or writ: a warrant or writ that is issued by a legal authority

The precepts of the Law are written on our hearts and minds, God said so.
Generally speaking 'agape love'. law of the Spirit the word says. the Royal Law, James calls it.

 

[JLB]

See post 119.

Oh, I see, now. Faith upholds the requirements of the law of Moses, not the letter of the law of Moses. I wonder if that's what Paul meant when he said this:

"31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." (Romans 3:31 NASB)
"...we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:6 NASB)

I'll have to add that to my doctrine.

Any of God's righteous laws are not nullified by faith, since the very standard of faith is obedience.

We as Gentiles after the flesh are grafted into the Abrahamic Covenant, in Christ, not the law of Moses.

The same righteousness requirements that were in the Abrahamic Covenant were also seen into the law.

When the law was added, these righteous commandments and precepts and laws were still intact.

What the law added was special days to observe, special Sabbath requirements, animal sacrifices, Levitical priesthood requirements, food laws, ceremonial washings, of which were to point the children of Israel to Christ.

These requirements of the law of Moses were added to the Abrahamic Covenant, and were administered by the Levitical Priesthood. Without the Levitical Priesthood to administer these requirements, then there is no law of Moses.

Look at these two phrases found in Hebrews 7 -

• if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law),
• For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

Therefore, what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. Hebrews 7:11-12

No Levitical Priesthood, No law of Moses!

What never vanishes away is the righteous commandments, precepts and laws that God taught Abraham as he walked with Him.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

Any of God's righteous laws are not nullified by faith, since the very standard of faith is obedience.

We as Gentiles after the flesh are grafted into the Abrahamic Covenant, in Christ, not the law of Moses.

The same righteousness requirements that were in the Abrahamic Covenant were also seen into the law.

When the law was added, these righteous commandments and precepts and laws were still intact.

What the law added was special days to observe, special Sabbath requirements, animal sacrifices, Levitical priesthood requirements, food laws, ceremonial washings, of which were to point the children of Israel to Christ.

These requirements of the law of Moses were added to the Abrahamic Covenant, and were administered by the Levitical Priesthood. Without the Levitical Priesthood to administer these requirements, then there is no law of Moses.

Look at these two phrases found in Hebrews 7 -

• if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law),
• For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

Therefore, what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. Hebrews 7:11-12

No Levitical Priesthood, No law of Moses!

What never vanishes away is the righteous commandments, precepts and laws that God taught Abraham as he walked with Him.


JLB

What are they and when were the given to Abram/Abraham?

 

[JLB]

What are they and when were the given to Abram/Abraham?

That's just the point, Deb.

You learn directly from The Lord, who is the Tree of Life.

It's not a list of commandments that are written in stone.

That's why the scripture says , the law is not of faith.

Abraham learned "good from evil" from The Lord, the Tree of Life, as Adam was told to do.

Commandments that come directly from The Lord, produce faith.

You won't find a "list" of commandments that God gave Abraham to do, or not to do.

Yet we find that Abraham was commended by God, as He told his son -

Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. 4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." 6 So Isaac dwelt in Gerar. Genesis 26:3-6

It is the Rhema word of God that produces faith.

His Voice, His word to us produces both life and faith.

Abraham walked by faith. That means He walked in relationship with God and learned from Him.

The New covenant, unlike the law of Moses, is where The Lord God Himself dwells in the believer.

That is why He says, neither shall each man teach his neighbor saying know The Lord, for each will know Me from the least to the greatest.

Anything that is not from faith is sin.

JLB

 

[Deborah13]

That's just the point, Deb.

You learn directly from The Lord, who is the Tree of Life.

It's not a list of commandments that are written in stone.

That's why the scripture says , the law is not of faith.

Abraham learned "good from evil" from The Lord, the Tree of Life, as Adam was told to do.

Commandments that come directly from The Lord, produce faith.

You won't find a "list" of commandments that God gave Abraham to do, or not to do.

Yet we find that Abraham was commended by God, as He told his son -

Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. 4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." 6 So Isaac dwelt in Gerar. Genesis 26:3-6

It is the Rhema word of God that produces faith.

His Voice, His word to us produces both life and faith.

Abraham walked by faith. That means He walked in relationship with God and learned from Him.

The New covenant, unlike the law of Moses, is where The Lord God Himself dwells in the believer.

That is why He says, neither shall each man teach his neighbor saying know The Lord, for each will know Me from the least to the greatest.

Anything that is not from faith is sin.

JLB

If I understood you correctly, I say.....:amen

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That's just the point, Deb.

You learn directly from The Lord, who is the Tree of Life.

It's not a list of commandments that are written in stone.

The requirements of God being written down on stone implies something other than the simple fact that they are written down. God teaches us when we study the written scriptures and his Holy Spirit inhabits those written words. So we know the point is not that they were written down in the old covenant. They are written down in the New Covenant, too.

The difference is the condition of the heart where the word lands. Written on stone signifies the hardness of men's hearts in the old covenant. Written on flesh signifies the tenderness of men's hearts in the New Covenant. Hearts made tender by the ministry of the Holy Spirit loosed from heaven through the work of Christ on the cross for all of his people (because all of his people are 'in the ministry' in this New Covenant).

It is the Rhema word of God that produces faith.

God's voice inhabits the written word, too.

God's commands being written down is not the issue. WHAT they are written on is the issue. The tablets of stone are symbolic of the hardness of men's hearts in the old covenant. They do not signify a literal way that does not work for teaching men the commands of God. We learn God's commands in this New Covenant via the written word. The difference is the tenderness of the hearts of God's people because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in this New Covenant.

"19 And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,20 that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them." (Ezekiel 11:19-20 NASB)

"...I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:26-27 NASB)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Once again, I agree with Vine's. What does Vine's say......
so Rom 8:4, "ordinance of the Law," i.e., collectively, the precepts of the Law, all that it demands as right;
ordinance = singular
precepts = plural

• pre·cept [ pr sèpt ]

1. principle: a rule, instruction, or principle that guides somebody's actions, especially one that guides moral behavior
2. warrant or writ: a warrant or writ that is issued by a legal authority

The precepts of the Law are written on our hearts and minds, God said so.
Generally speaking 'agape love'. law of the Spirit the word says. the Royal Law, James calls it.

Your point was not in dispute.

What was in dispute was the belief that 'requirement' could not mean 'requirements' in the Bible. Vines shows it does.

 

[JLB]

The requirements of God being written down on stone implies something other than the simple fact that they are written down. God teaches us when we study the written scriptures and his Holy Spirit inhabits those written words. So we know the point is not that they were written down in the old covenant. They are written down in the New Covenant, too.

The difference is the condition of the heart where the word lands. Written on stone signifies the hardness of men's hearts in the old covenant. Written on flesh signifies the tenderness of men's hearts in the New Covenant. Hearts made tender by the ministry of the Holy Spirit loosed from heaven through the work of Christ on the cross for all of his people (because all of his people are 'in the ministry' in this New Covenant).
God's voice inhabits the written word, too.

The Pharisee's who murdered Christ as well as Saul of Tarsus were experts at studying the scriptures.

39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.John 5:39-40


Paul the Apostle wrote the New Testament.

He will be the first to tell us that His Gospel and what he learned came directly from the Tree of life Himself.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The Pharisee's who murdered Christ as well as Saul of Tarsus were experts at studying the scriptures.

Therefore, we should not study the written word? That's absurd.

Paul was an expert of experts at studying the scriptures. God breathed life and faith into the words he had studied all his life. That's why they were of effect for him, but not for the other Israelites who closed their eyes and ears to Moses and the written words of the scriptures that testified about Christ.

Mere possession of the word--even knowing what it says--is not how we know God. But God's remedy for that mistake of understanding was not to somehow make the written word an antique of an old covenant. The answer has always been to mix the written word with faith. How much more so in this New Covenant.

39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.John 5:39-40

Why is it necessary to quote the written word here? Your written doctrine is not suggesting that we can learn something from the written word, is it? That would be completely contrary to the doctrine being taught in those written words.

Even the premise for the doctrine you are teaching is from the written word, and then delivered to us by you in written form (completely contrary to what you're insisting is true about the written word):

"I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For all will know Me,
From the least to the greatest of them." (Hebrews 8:10-11 NASB)

Your doctrine says we should already know this for ourselves and have no need for written words (and that it's even wrong to use them). Which illustrates what an obvious misinterpretation of what 'no need to teach your brother' that is. Very obvious.

Paul the Apostle wrote the New Testament.

He will be the first to tell us that His Gospel and what he learned came directly from the Tree of life Himself.

Why did he write it down if we all just learn directly from the Lord, and that studying the written words can not lead a person to the truth?

It's something else about the written word of God, not the written words themselves, that your doctrine is not taking into consideration. The missing element that makes the word of God of no effect is faith:

"30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works." (Romans 9:30-32 NASB)

"2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard." (Hebrews 4:2 NASB)

See? Even in this, God teaches us these things via his word. What makes the difference is if we have the ears of faith to 'hear' and benefit by what God teaches us through his word. Reading God's word written down is not what 'went away' in this New Covenant, as if that, in and of itself, is why the first covenant was a failure.

When God's voice does not inhabit the word of God, or that voice is snuffed out by unbelief, that is when the ministry of the written word is of no effect. But to suggest the problem was in the fact that it was written down doesn't jibe with how we all learn today, or jube with how you have been speaking to us through the written word. According to your very own doctrine, we can't learn from you sharing the written word of God in this forum.

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -
Therefore, we should not study the written word? That's absurd.

What's absurd is that you would think and post such nonsense.

I wonder how many others who read what I posted, came to the same conclusion.

I also noticed that you posted that I was "against" the Ten Commandments.

Thankfully, Sparrowhawk deleted that nonsense.

JLB

 

[JLB]

Therefore, we should not study the written word? That's absurd.

Paul was an expert of experts at studying the scriptures. God breathed life and faith into the words he had studied all his life. That's why they were of effect for him, but not for the other Israelites who closed their eyes and ears to Moses and the written words of the scriptures that testified about Christ.

Mere possession of the word--even knowing what it says--is not how we know God. But God's remedy for that mistake of understanding was not to somehow make the written word an antique of an old covenant. The answer has always been to mix the written word with faith. How much more so in this New Covenant.



Why is it necessary to quote the written word here? Your written doctrine is not suggesting that we can learn something from the written word, is it? That would be completely contrary to the doctrine being taught in those written words.

Even the premise for the doctrine you are teaching is from the written word, and then delivered to us by you in written form (completely contrary to what you're insisting is true about the written word):

"I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For all will know Me,
From the least to the greatest of them." (Hebrews 8:10-11 NASB)

Your doctrine says we should already know this for ourselves and have no need for written words (and that it's even wrong to use them). Which illustrates what an obvious misinterpretation of what 'no need to teach your brother' that is. Very obvious.




Why did he write it down if we all just learn directly from the Lord, and that studying the written words can not lead a person to the truth?

It's something else about the written word of God, not the written words themselves, that your doctrine is not taking into consideration. The missing element that makes the word of God of no effect is faith:

"30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works." (Romans 9:30-32 NASB)

"2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard." (Hebrews 4:2 NASB)

See? Even in this, God teaches us these things via his word. What makes the difference is if we have the ears of faith to 'hear' and benefit by what God teaches us through his word. Reading God's word written down is not what 'went away' in this New Covenant, as if that, in and of itself, is why the first covenant was a failure.

When God's voice does not inhabit the word of God, or that voice is snuffed out by unbelief, that is when the ministry of the written word is of no effect. But to suggest the problem was in the fact that it was written down doesn't jibe with how we all learn today, or jube with how you have been speaking to us through the written word. According to your very own doctrine, we can't learn from you sharing the written word of God in this forum.

Because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." Genesis 26:4

Did Abraham have the scriptures to teach him God's law?

JLB

 

[Deborah13]

Your point was not in dispute.

What was in dispute was the belief that 'requirement' could not mean 'requirements' in the Bible. Vines shows it does.

I think that each instance of the use of 'requirement/s" should be looked at in the context of the scripture.
Some are singular, some are plural, but to lump them together to say that each time it is used is speaking of the same thing, I don't think is valid.

 

[JLB]

I think that each instance of the use of 'requirement/s" should be looked at in the context of the scripture.
Some are singular, some are plural, but to lump them together to say that each time it is used is speaking of the same thing, I don't think is valid.

:amen

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think that each instance of the use of 'requirement/s" should be looked at in the context of the scripture.
Some are singular, some are plural, but to lump them together to say that each time it is used is speaking of the same thing, I don't think is valid.

Somebody said I can't say 'requirements of the law' because the word is 'requirement' in Romans 8:4. But Vines says exactly what I was saying:

"...Rom 8:4, "ordinance of the Law," i.e., collectively, the precepts of the Law, all that it demands as right; ..."

It's okay to understand 'requirement' in terms of the collective 'requirementS' of the law. I was told I could not interpret it that way.

 

[Deborah13]

Somebody said I can't say 'requirements of the law' because the word is 'requirement' in Romans 8:4. But Vines says exactly what I was saying:

"...Rom 8:4, "ordinance of the Law," i.e., collectively, the precepts of the Law, all that it demands as right; ..."

It's okay to understand 'requirement' in terms of the collective 'requirementS' of the law. I was told I could not interpret it that way.

Have it your way, Jethro.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." Genesis 26:4

Did Abraham have the scriptures to teach him God's law?

JLB

Him not having the scriptures does not mean we should not study the scriptures or else be found to be like the Pharisees in John 5:39 (your quote).

It's okay to read and study the law. The fact that it was written down in the first covenant is not what was wrong with that covenant. That belief is all part of this fear about the law in the church today. Fear that acknowledgment of the law is somehow equal to a works gospel.