Does man naturally have ability to Seek God ?

[brightfame52]

roger

Now however, with Christ's offering completed, at the highest possible spiritual level, only two laws exist with eternal spiritual consequence: The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus and the law of sin and death. Everyone falls into one or the other. All laws that are based upon one's attempt to achieve eternal life were spawned from, and are subjective to, the law of sin and death (or the law of law), and thereby can only bring eternal spiritual death. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus on the other hand, is the polar opposite of the law of sin and death in that it, in and of itself, and alone, is that which brings forth eternal spiritual life through Christ.

This is pretty much one being either law or under Grace. If one insists on salvation by something they do, any action of theirs whatsover, chances are they are under the curse, and will die in that condition.

However, those who God saves through Christ, are delivered from the curse of the law, and will consequently be given faith in Christ by the newbirth, and will rest in Gods amazing grace, realizing Christ has fulfilled all conditions, requirements needed and saved them from their sins, and has provided them with a righteousness, yea, even the very righteousness of God !

 

[rogerg]

rogerg


Roger I believe God created Adam and Eve sinful from the beginning, and the command not eat of that certain tree would in the by and by be broken, it was inevitable, because they were created for a redemptive purpose in Christ. Before they were created, Jesus Christ in the Eternal Purpose of God stood as their Surety in what I believe to be the everlasting covenant of Grace Eph 3:9-11

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Grace was given and purpose to the elect in Christ before the world began, before Adam was created 2 Tim 1:9

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

So though naturally upright and innocent, Adam and Eve still had a sinful nature. Also when they sinned, I believe they understood evil, that they were evil. But this is when God discovered to them the Higher Good that was coming into the world as the seed of the woman, the Lord Jesus Christ, and believing the the first parents were elect, the true righteousness from the coming seed of the woman was revealed.

Hi brightfame52,
it is my understanding that sin cannot be imputed to anyone without the existence of law to identify transgression -- without law there is nothing to be judged by or against. So, "sinful" and "evil"" are relative phrases. Before law, no, there could be neither (I think), but after law, and relative to law's stipulations, yes, they could be held accountable and found guilty. As I’ve mentioned, it seems to me that the eating of the tree caused law to be brought to life which then judged Adam and Eve (and everyone else ever to be born). This is not to say that there was not sin before then, but that sin though existing was apart from them and could not be imputed to them until law.
However, in thinking about my prior post, I believe that could have given a clearer explanation about the introduction of law and death. To clarify now, allow me to try to unpack God's commandment/warning to Adam and Eve about eating of the fruit of the tree.
Please notice in 2:17 that God informed them they would "surely die" should they eat of the tree. By that warning, we can know several things: 1) that as long as they didn’t eat (or if had instead eaten from the Tree of Life), they would/could never die no matter what else they might do: they would have lived forever; 2) we can know that whatever brought death resulted from eating of the tree, but per God’s warning not before the eating. To provide foundation, we can see in 1 Co 15:55 that the strength of sin is law. Therefore, according to God's warning of 2:17, without law, it would be/is impossible to impute sin to anyone, and without sin being imputed there could be no death. The result of the eating was that law was made alive (and remains alive) and brought judgment, and with judgment, death to Adam, Eve, and to everyone ever to be born -- otherwise, there would be no death. Maybe it would be more clearly visualized this way:
law = sin’s imputation = death: but should law be missing from the equation, the chain would be broken and death could not occur. Other than by eating, Adam and Eve would not/could not die no matter what else they might do, but in fulfillment of God's warning, because they did eat, they, and we, died. Once law was present, it was then also present to judge everyone and it is why we have been told that Adam made many people sinners - because the law that he brought forth is present to judge and condemn everyone from even before the first instant of physical life, as it had judged and condemned Adam and Eve. It judges us guilty because in our hearts as natural man, we by nature, and before becoming saved, believe and trust that the true gospel is found in law and works not Christ. This in itself is the “trodden (ing)” underfoot the Son of God, against which will God exact eternal judgement which punishment is associated to the law of sin and death. This law is the polar opposite of the spiritual law of Christ, that says that by His offering, He alone removed law, or rather, moved those He saves out from under that law.
I think this is validated in Romans 7:5. Notice that it says “the law” as in one law.
One other thing I should have made clear is that the law that I am referring to aren’t the individual laws governing the affairs of men in this world, but instead, is law at its highest form: spiritual law, under which, is everyone placed who is born. The laws are holy, but to self-justify ourselves for salvation using them, is from Satan .

[Rom 7:5 KJV]
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

[Rom 7:6 KJV]
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.

[Rom 7:14 KJV]
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Now, having said the above, I do not think that it in any way contradicts or invalidates the doctrine of election, in which I am a total and complete believer and neither did I ever intend to imply otherwise.

Not sure whether I've made it clearer or more confusing - it is simple in concept but complicated in explanation. After rereading it, I still don’t feel that I’ve hit the nail on the head nor explained sufficiently, so please bear with me.

Anyway, at least I hope the whys and wherefores of my perception have come though clearly enough to understand it. There’s a lot more to delve into but I think that I’ve gone far enough into the weeds for now. I know there is more that I wanted to include but it escapes me right now. When, and if, I recall it, I’ll post.

[Gen 2:17 KJV]
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[1Co 15:55-56 KJV]
55 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?
56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.

[Rom 7:8-9 KJV]
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

[Rom 5:19 KJV] 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

[Heb 10:29 KJV]
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

 

[brightfame52]

roger

However, in thinking about my prior post, I believe that could have given a clearer explanation about the introduction of law and death. To clarify now, allow me to try to unpack God's commandment/warning to Adam and Eve about eating of the fruit of the tree.
Please notice in 2:17 that God informed them they would "surely die" should they eat of the tree. By that warning, we can know several things: 1) that as long as they didn’t eat (or if had instead eaten from the Tree of Life), they would/could never die no matter what else they might do: they would have lived forever

Perhaps so, however it would have been a natural, physical life, far inferior to the life God had promised to His Elect in Christ before the world began Titus 1:1

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

This was a life that Adam didnt have naturally and could not have been the progenitor of 1 Cor 15:50


Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

At best, man in adam was flesh and blood !

Please notice in 2:17 that God informed them they would "surely die" should they eat of the tree. By that warning,

Lets not forget, the command/law was not to eat of the particular tree Gen 2:16-17

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

You see that ? God commanded, thats Law from the mouth of God, secondly, He said thou shalt not eat of it, again Law

Remember the Law of moses, it Ex 20:4,5

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Im sure you get the picture. Gods Law was established at His command !

 

[rogerg]

Perhaps so, however it would have been a natural, physical life, far inferior to the life God had promised to His Elect in Christ before the world began Titus 1:1

I don't think there would have been any difference in their lives at all because there would be no law by which to judge and penalize them. For example, God gave to them no commandment regarding nakedness (if you're saying that the commandment God gave them was law): they were naked with no shame before the fall, yet afterwards, they became aware of their state and attempted to rectify it themselves with fig leaves: something within them told them being naked was wrong and they responded to it. That something could only be from a law or commandment, but such a commandment was not given by God because, obviously, we can see that no such commandment (or law) had been forthcoming from God, yet only law could be a basis for their thinking nakedness was wrong. Because there was no such law given against it before the fall, they did not/could not think before the fall that nakedness was wrong.
Regarding, the life God promises to His elect, I believe that it will be a far, far better one than is now/ or was before the fall. I think it will be so wonderful it is beyond the comprehension of fallen man to perceive it -- but I think that is a different question.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

At best, man in adam was flesh and blood !

I think that verse was pertaining to after the fall, not before it. There would be no corruption of them until after the fall - had they not eaten of the tree, they would have remained exactly as they were regardless of any other of their actions - that was the whole point of God's warning-- that they should not eat of it in order to protect them. Since God gave no other warnings besides that one, there were no other punishments that could be levied.

You see that ? God commanded, thats Law from the mouth of God, secondly, He said thou shalt not eat of it, again Law

If that were Law as you say, then it was Law consisting of but one law and existing only before the fall, not after.
Once the Law (command) was violated by Adam and Eve by the eating of the tree, it ceased to be relevant because its purpose had been violated. God therefore took Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and placed them into the world as we know it. Accompanying them was the Law they brought to life, and which remains in-effect even to this day.

[Gen 3:23-24 KJV]
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

In Gal 44:4 we can see that Christ came to redeem those under law

[Gal 4:4-5 KJV]
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

In Rom 5:19-20, we can see that Christ came to undo what had been done by Adam and Eve. If Christ came
to redeem those under law, and Christ came to make righteous those made sinners by Adam, then I think it would follow logically that Christ came to undo law that was brought to life by Adam and Eve since, He came to "redeem them that were under law" - which means that law must have been the one of Adam and Eve.

Notice the word "entered" in verse 20 below. Adam and Eve caused law to enter.
The law we are discussing wasn't "given", instead, it "entered", or came in secretly.
The definition of "entered" is:

pareiserchomai (Key)

1. to come in secretly or by stealth, or creep or steal in
2. to enter in addition, come in besides
   
   [Rom 5:19-20 KJV]

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:

The same thing can be observed in 1 Co 15:22: Christ came to undo that which was done by Adam, and redeem
those under law. For Christ to make alive all those who are in Adam, He can only do so by undoing what Adam did.
If Christ came to redeem those under law, and to make alive those Adam made die, then the law must be law
of Adam's making

[1Co 15:20-22 KJV]
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

 

[brightfame52]

roger

I don't think there would have been any difference in their lives at all because there would be no law by which to judge and penalize them.

Adams natural life wasn't a penalty for sin, it was a matter of Gods created order. It was Gods design for the elect to first partake of the natural earthy, then the Spiritual heavenly due to His Eternal redemptive Purpose in Christ. 1 Cor 15:46

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

See it was always Gods first intention and purpose to conform a people to the image of Christ, adam creation was subordinate to that, God never meant for man to live eternally naturally, but heavenly, according to Christ His firstborn of all creation, remember Christ is from heaven 1 Cor 15:47

The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Friend there was a big difference between natural earthy life out of adam, and eternal heavenly life out of Christ !

 

[brightfame52]

roger

. For example, God gave to them no commandment regarding nakedness (if you're saying that the commandment God gave them was law): they were naked with no shame before the fall, yet afterwards, they became aware of their state and attempted to rectify it themselves with fig leaves: something within them told them being naked was wrong and they responded to it.

I think I touched on this. I see no law about thou shalt not be naked, but I do see a law thou shalt not eat of that certain tree. I believe after they sinned, against the commandment thou shalt not eat, they lost their innocence, their natural uprightness, and correct standing with God, and as an emblem of that, they became ashamed of that, Their clothing themselves is also emblematic of how guilty man will make attempts to cloth himself before God with his own righteousness, but God stripped them of their own righteousness so to speak, and clothed them with coats of skins that He himself provided, serving as an emblem of the righteousness He provides through the coming seed of the woman which is Christ.

BTW when Adam said in Gen 3:10

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

I dont think Adam was being honest here, I believe the real reason for hiding himself was because he had eaten of the tree God had commanded him not to eat. Notice Gods reply in Vs 11
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

That the real reason for their shame !

 

[brightfame52]

roger

If that were Law as you say, then it was Law consisting of but one law and existing only before the fall, not after.

Maybe that particular command was only once, but it was still Gods law, which is eternal. Adam and eve , it can be argued, in disobeying that one law, broke all ten commandments in principal

I know for a fact when he sinned they broke the first 2 commandments Jesus summarizes Matt 22:36-40

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets

In eating, were they guilty of breaking the first commandant ? In eve giving to her husband and he did eat, wasn't that a violation of commandment #2 ?

And so as the Holy Apostle James wrote James 2:10

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

 

[rogerg]

Maybe that particular command was only once, but it was still Gods law, which is eternal. Adam and eve , it can be argued, in disobeying that one law, broke all ten commandments in principal

I know for a fact when he sinned they broke the first 2 commandments Jesus summarizes Matt 22:36-40

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

How can that commandment still be in effect when it applied to only one action that is over, done, and impossible to change or add to? It was a very narrow commandment consisting of only one specific requirement and timeframe that could either satisfied then or not, with carryover of it on to a different timeframe not possible. After being violated, and since it only pertained to the eating of the tree (of which they did eat), it was no longer relevant.
The Ten Commandments didn't exist at the time of that commandment - so it is impossible they were violated.
Regarding the rest of your reply, again, those laws and commandments did not exist at the time of the eating of the tree, so they were not pertinent relative to that commandment: something that does not yet exist cannot be broken - they were in/for a different time, place and occurred long after the fact.

 

[rogerg]

think I touched on this. I see no law about thou shalt not be naked, but I do see a law thou shalt not eat of that certain tree. I believe after they sinned, against the commandment thou shalt not eat, they lost their innocence, their natural uprightness, and correct standing with God, and as an emblem of that, they became ashamed of that, Their clothing themselves is also emblematic of how guilty man will make attempts to cloth himself before God with his own righteousness, but God stripped them of their own righteousness so to speak, and clothed them with coats of skins that He himself provided, serving as an emblem of the righteousness He provides through the coming seed of the woman which is Christ.

Correct, you didn't see that law because it was internal to them from the eating of the fruit of the tree, so, law itself became a very part of Adam and Eve with nothing of it to see happening externally. The commandment not to eat, on the other hand, was not internal but external. Only because God had verbalized it to them so they would know it and that we could read, was it tangible.
Regarding the loss of their innocence, uprightness and correct standing, ETC, with God (and I'm not sure how
best to phrase this but...) the awareness of that can only come about from a new law that came into being which made clear the differentiation between good and evil. Now, I am not saying there was a particular law against nakedness given directly to them from the eating, but it came from the law of sin and death which did come directly by the eating. Their nakedness was not sin as they had been naked before God before and He said nothing about it to them, but instead, because, when they became aware, they believed they could correct it through their own actions - that is the sin and comes from the law of sin and death.

I would most definitely agree with your conclusion that being clothed by God physically was primarily an analogy for being clothed by Christ spiritually.

I dont think Adam was being honest here, I believe the real reason for hiding himself was because he had eaten of the tree God had commanded him not to eat. Notice Gods reply in Vs 11
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

That the real reason for their shame !

Hmmm. Not exactly sure how you came to that conclusion- I don't quite see it that way - but respectfully, but neither do I think that it changes the fundamental fact that there was something new within them that previously didn't exist but that gave them awareness of their nakedness and to correct it. I submit that it was a fruit of the law of sin and death.

So, I think the things we're discussing are very complex and often are difficult to write about clearly and concisely, nor to verbalize correctly - not to mention, at least for me, that I feel that I still have much to learn and understand. Please keep that in mind when reading my posts.

Thanks, brightfame52
Roger

 

[brightfame52]

roger

How can that commandment still be in effect when it applied to only one action that is over, done, and impossible to change or add to?

Obviously you didn't pay attention to a thing I said.

 

[brightfame52]

roger

The Ten Commandments didn't exist at the time of that commandment

I believe they did, in seed form, in that commandment

Regarding the rest of your reply, again, those laws and commandments did not exist at the time of the eating of the tree, so they were not pertinent relative to that commandment: something that does not yet exist cannot be broken - they were in/for a different time, place and occurred long after the fact.

They did exist in seed form in that commandment. Gods Law is eternal. Also all the ten commandments are summarized here Jesus said Matt 22

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

When they ate, they definitely broke the first commandment. When they coveted to eat of the tree God had forbade them, they no doubt broke 7th commandment Thou shalt not covet.

Paul said himself about the law and its holiness Rom 7:7-13

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

May God be pleased to open up your understanding on this pint !

 

[rogerg]

Obviously you didn't pay attention to a thing I said.

I did but my point still stands: the commandment ended when they violated it.

 

[brightfame52]

I did but my point still stands: the commandment ended when they violated it.

I disagree, not in principle ! And besides that, you acknowledge it was a law that they broke ! If it wasnt a law in full effect and force it would not have been considered a transgression, which I am sure that was meant here Rom 5:14

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.

And here 1 Tim 2:14

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

And what is sin but transgression of the Law 1 Jn 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

So did they, Adam and eve transgress the Law when they disobeyed Gods command Thou shalt not eat of that tree ? Yes or no my friend ?

 

[rogerg]

They did exist in seed form in that commandment. Gods Law is eternal. Also all the ten commandments are summarized here Jesus said Matt 22

How then do you read this?
[Heb 7:12 KJV] 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

In God's eyes, there are only two laws with standing or relevancy:

[Rom 8:1-3 KJV]
1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
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:

Actually, I think that Romans 7:7 - 7:13 supports my position: the commandment being referred to in those verses is God's commandment not to eat of the tree - the eating of which, cursed mankind.

Sin used God's commandment warning to not eat of the tree to foist law upon mankind, and by it, to cause all manner of concupiscence in/by man; that is, the violation of the commandment not to eat, caused the law to exist, and by that, gave life to sin - without law sin was dead.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Anyway, no offense, but I think we're caught in a loop since we're repeating the same things over and over again. So, I don't see much point in continuing for now, do you?
In spite of this difference, I think that in most areas we agree.

 

[brightfame52]

roger

How then do you read this?
[Heb 7:12 KJV] 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

lol I read it the way it is, I would have to study it in light of everything else I understand.

Actually, I think that Romans 7:7 - 7:13 supports my position: the commandment being referred to in those verses is God's commandment not to eat of the tree - the eating of which, cursed mankind.

I believe it favors me roger. You sound a little confused now, or confusing !

Anyway, no offense, but I think we're caught in a loop since we're repeating the same things over and over again. So, I don't see much point in continuing for now, do you?
In spite of this difference, I think that in most areas we agree.

I think we have agreed on some very vital issues.

 

[rogerg]

So did they, Adam and eve transgress the Law when they disobeyed Gods command Thou shalt not eat of that tree ? Yes or no my friend ?

Well, there was no other law at that time, so, if you want to call a commandment law, then to that extent, they broke that only law there was. But... was it THE Law that we will be judged by? Nope. As I said above, there are only two laws: the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and the law of sin and death. As far as salvation is concerned, those are all that matter. All law is fulfilled in Christ not us -- He is the basis of it.

 

[rogerg]

lol I read it the way it is, I would have to study it in light of everything else I understand.

I meant your interpretation of it, not your technique for reading it.
You said that law is eternal, but the Bible tells us by Christ there is a new law.

I believe it favors me roger. You sound a little confused now, or confusing !

No, not confused at all, and I obviously don't agree with your interpretation of those verses.
I believe mine to be the correct one.

 

[brightfame52]

roger

Well, there was no other law at that time, so, if you want to call a commandment law, then to that extent, they broke that only law there was. But..

What about the 7th commandment, thou shalt not covet, was that couched in that commandment ? Did eve covet something forbidden by God. Scripture said she:

Gen 3:6

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

BTW that word desired also means covet , ḥāmaḏ:

In fact its the very same word used here Ex 20:17

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's

 

[brightfame52]

roger

But... was it THE Law that we will be judged by? Nope.

Thou shalt not covet will be ! It was couched in that Law !

As I said above, there are only two laws: the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and the law of sin and death.

What about the Law of Faith ? Whats your take on that ? Rom 3:27

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

What about the law of righteousness Rom 9:31

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

what about the law of liberty ? James 1:25

But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Again James 2:12

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

As far as salvation is concerned, those are all that matter. All law is fulfilled in Christ not us -- He is the basis of it.

And by Christ. Christ fulfilled the entire Law for His People and for His God Isa 42:21

21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

 

[brightfame52]

roger

I meant your interpretation of it, not your technique for reading it.
You said that law is eternal, but the Bible tells us by Christ there is a new law.

Roger, I need to study it to give my understanding of it.

You said that law is eternal, but the Bible tells us by Christ there is a new law.

Yes I say that because God is Eternal and His Law emanates from His Being

What is the New Law Roger ?

No, not confused at all, and I obviously don't agree with your interpretation of those verses.
I believe mine to be the correct one.

Thats fair, and likewise ! I believe the 7th commandment was couched in the commandment for them not eat of that certain tree.

And the reason why I say you are confusing, its because the whole of this discussion was based upon your premise i thought was no law was broken until they discovered their nakedness' with shame.