Is the Law of God dead? And if yes, how?

[stovebolts]

So seeing as Paul said in Romans 6:14b "for you are not under law but under grace." then Jesus didn't say what Paul did. So wherein lies the issue? It sets Jesus against Paul when expressing some doctrinal positions. But I may be wrong.

I would say this. Don’t look at the scriptures as bits and bytes of texts. Dig deeper. If your viewing Paul’s writings as being opposed to the words of Jesus, then you’ve missed the discussions that are occur in within those passages.

Do you understand Genesis through Malichi to the depths that Paul did? If not, and you find an apparent contradiction between Paul’s writing and the words of Jesus, then the misunderstanding is within your reasoning, not Paul’s. Peter, being a Jew recognized this, and warns us of this.

 

[rhomphaeam]

I would say this. Don’t look at the scriptures as bits and bytes of texts.

I don't - I am a Calvinist and I find it implausible to be told what you have just told me taken from what I said to another poster. Which I already explained. It's unfathomable.

 

[rhomphaeam]

Do you understand Genesis through Malichi to the depths that Paul did? If not, and you find an apparent contradiction between Paul’s writing and the words of Jesus, then the misunderstanding is within your reasoning, not Paul’s. Peter, being a Jew recognized this, and warns us of this.

I don't find any contradiction between the apostle Paul and the Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi. As above - its unfathomable that you would even ask me given what I said in #757. So just to say it - I was born a Jew.

 

[Truthfrees]

2Peter 3:15
ASV
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they doalso the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I’ve studied Torah using commentary from RAMBAN and it taught me Jews have very different discussions regarding scripture than gentiles. It also taught me how robust their language is. Some of the things RAMBAN said are hard to understand when first reading them and I recall getting confused numerous times trying to comprehend. And to boot, I’ve seen folks misunderstand him and twist it to their own destruction.

From this perspective, I know Paul was a student of the teachings of Hillel, and he had a deep, deep understanding of scripture. As a side note, Jesus sides with Hillel and expands Hillel teaching on every subject other than divorce. On the subject of divorce, Jesus sides with Shemia.

I say all this to remind you that when we read the Bible, we are entering into a broader conversation that’s already in motion. And it’s not that Paul is saying anything different than Jesus, but rather it’s easy to misunderstand Paul, just as Peter states.

To the church in Corinth, Paul reminds them that Christ is to be followed and even includes himself in chapter 1. You see, the last thing we want to do is set a notion that Paul’s writings are pitted against the words of Jesus. To those that put Paul’s words higher than Jesus, Paul would be quick to correct them, just as he did in 1 Corinthians 1. If anyone pits the words of Paul against the words of Jesus, then they do so unto their own destruction as Peter has said. You see, it’s simply their own misunderstandings of what Paul is saying.

so true - in one of my posts in this thread i said it was a shame paul spoke to gentiles in talmudic speak - that is how pharisees talk to each other and it makes ordinary jews heads spin - if he would have spoken to gentiles in gentile speak peter would have had no need to say paul is hard to understand

i agree that pitting paul's words against God's is a bad idea - so is throwing out God's words in favor of paul's - peter james john and paul all made errors in their ministry - scripture records it for the sake of truth - God has made none

scripture records how peter made a mistake when some saved by circumcision jews came to their fellowship - paul called him out publicly - paul said hearing the law makes sin arise - i haven't experienced that ever - honor you parents makes me honor my parents - do not steal makes me not steal - keep shabbat holy makes me do that - paul said there was no sin in the wordl until the law - the flood proves that wrong - paul said do not observe special holidays yet he was always racing to jerusalem to make it in time for a feast - paul said do not be circumcised if you are not - yet he circumcised timothy whose father was a greek - i say all this to point out that what people think paul is saying is probably not what he is saying - people think he says the law is void yet he himself says not in Romans 3:31

so am i opposing paul? - nope - i am trying to help people see that if what paul says SEEMS to contradict God then it is the misinterpretation of paul

also if someone tries to void God's words because they seem to contradict paul's words then that is the convers of what should be done

 

[stovebolts]

I don't find any contradiction between the apostle Paul and the Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi. As above - its unfathomable that you would even ask me given what I said in #757. So just to say it - I was born a Jew.

Ahh, so in post 754 you were restating another’s position and not your own. Is this correct?

 

[stovebolts]

so am i opposing paul? - nope - i am trying to help people see that if what paul says SEEMS to contradict God then it is the wrong interpretation of paul

Thank you for this clarification.

paul said there was no sin in the wordl until the law - the flood proves that wrong -

This is confusing to me. From a simple reading, it seems you are charging Paul as being wrong.

Please explain.

 

[rhomphaeam]

Ahh, so in post 754 you were restating another’s position and not your own. Is this correct?

I was answering Norman concerning something that JLB said to yourself at #752. So yes I wasn't making the statement or the claim - I was expressing it as an explanation to Norman. I wish I hadn't bothered.

 

[rhomphaeam]

so true - in one of my posts in this thread i said it was a shame paul spoke to gentiles in talmudic speak - that is how pharisees talk to each other and it makes ordinary jews heads spin - if he would have spoken to gentiles in gentile speak peter would have had no need to say paul is hard to understand

Thats the first time I have read that argument put in terms of a schism in Pau'ls supposed Talmudic use of language. Which Talmud is that then? Babylonian or Jerusalem?

 

[Truthfrees]

Thank you for this clarification.

This is confusing to me. From a simple reading, it seems you are charging Paul as being wrong.

Please explain.

all of the points i bring out are what is being claimed by others - they say paul says there was no sin until the law - etc as per my long list - could paul have really meant it that way? - no - why? - because it contradicts the truth - so paul needs to be read more carefully to see what he really meant -

if you read through this thread in it's entirety you will see all the claims people make about what paul has said - pro-paulians - they are the ones saying these things - so i listed some of them and then proved this opposes what God says - meaning each person will have to decide did paul contradict God or are the pro-paulians misunderstanding paul - so far the pro-paulians erase God's words make God's words null and void somehow by saying thing like Jesus is ot etc -

i have 8 pages of posts in this thread - i keep getting asked the same questions repeatedly - if i leave out some clarification it is because i already clarified 5x previously

 

[Randy]

all of the points i bring out are what is being claimed by others - they say paul says there was no sin until the law - etc as per my long list - could paul have really meant it that way? - no - why? - because it contradicts the truth - so paul needs to be read more carefully to see what he really meant -

if you read through this thread in it's entirety you will see all the claims people make about what paul has said - pro-paulians - they are the ones saying these things - so i listed some of them and then proved this opposes what God says - meaning each person will have to decide did paul contradict God or are the pro-paulians misunderstanding paul - so far the pro-paulians erase God's words make God's words null and void somehow by saying thing like Jesus is ot etc -

i have 8 pages of posts in this thread - i keep getting asked the same questions repeatedly - if i leave out some clarification it is because i already clarified 5x previously

Paul=>
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

 

[Truthfrees]

Thats the first time I have read that argument put in terms of a schism in Pau'ls supposed Talmudic use of language. Which Talmud is that then? Babylonian or Jerusalem?

the babylonian is the most popular and i believe the most complete - the english version - you try to read it and it's like they talk circles and you don't know if they are pro or con because one guy takes 12 positions on one issue - and then they have the dissenting opinion and that guy does the same thing - so it seems like a whole lot of talking and no clear conclusions

 

[stovebolts]

I was answering Norman concerning something that JLB said to yourself at #752. So yes I wasn't making the statement or the claim - I was expressing it as an explanation to Norman. I wish I hadn't bothered.

It makes since now, thanks.
This actually serves as an example to a point I made earlier. When we read scripture, we need to know we’re entering into a conversation. As a result, it’s easy to misunderstand when we simply jump into a conversation without really understanding the conversation.
It’s all good, thank you.

 

[Truthfrees]

Paul=>
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

exactly - true to talmudic speak you can find paul talking both/many sides of the same issue and making opposite statements - it results in people thinking paul says God's holy laws are stinky garbage that needs to be thrown out

 

[stovebolts]

all of the points i bring out are what is being claimed by others - they say paul says there was no sin until the law - etc as per my long list - could paul have really meant it that way? - no - why? - because it contradicts the truth - so paul needs to be read more carefully to see what he really meant -

if you read through this thread in it's entirety you will see all the claims people make about what paul has said - pro-paulians - they are the ones saying these things - so i listed some of them and then proved this opposes what God says - meaning each person will have to decide did paul contradict God or are the pro-paulians misunderstanding paul - so far the pro-paulians erase God's words make God's words null and void somehow by saying thing like Jesus is ot etc -

i have 8 pages of posts in this thread - i keep getting asked the same questions repeatedly - if i leave out some clarification it is because i already clarified 5x previously

Thank you.
This thread is 39 pages…. And no, I have not read them, let alone your 8.

Please be careful and write in a manner that represents your views apart from the views of others. For example, “some are purported to say that xyz…

 

[Truthfrees]

Thank you.
This thread is 39 pages…. And no, I have not read them, let alone your 8.

Please be careful and write in a manner that represents your views apart from the views of others. For example, “some are purported to say that xyz…

yes will do - thanks

 

[rogerg]

I agree with all of this, brother, but what @Truthfrees quoted from Matthew 5:17-20 cannot mean that the Law and the Prophets have been annulled in the same sense of explaining that no flesh can be justified by the works of the Law. Justification when retrospectively cited amounts to saying 1 Corinthians 1:30 and that speaks of what the Father has done in Christ Jesus and therefore speaks of towards those that believe on His name. Some here appear to be speaking about the Royal Law - yet the Law and the Prophets will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away.

Sorry, I can be dense so I'm not exactly sure I'm following your point. To me the only important question is in the gaining of eternal salvation: the how, why, and when, is it acquired? Unless pertaining specifically to that, everything else IMHO becomes superfluous, secondary and irrelevant; that is, how can anything else matter? Should we consider ourselves to be Christian, we must then by definition believe that Christ is the Savior. If He is the Savior, then He alone does the saving, right? If He does, then what remains that we must do? Which law(s) must we follow that Christ has not satisfied and which are still needed for our salvation? I believe that ultimately, from God's perspective, and as stated by Paul in Rom 8:2 &3, that there are but two laws of significance. The first one we cannot grant to ourselves, and the second one we were all born under. Otherwise, why would God through Paul have so stated the following?

[Rom 8:2-3 KJV]
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:

As I stated, probably in a later post than the one you referenced, that becoming saved doesn't relieve those saved from performing good works (if that's what you consider the following of law). To the contrary, they have been called unto good works, but that emanates from becoming saved not for the gaining of it.

[Rom 10:3-4 KJV]
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

If I've missed or misunderstood your point I apologize and please let me know.

 

[rhomphaeam]

Sorry, I can be dense so I'm not exactly sure I'm following your point. To me the only important question is in the gaining of eternal salvation: the how, why, and when, is it acquired? Unless pertaining specifically to that, everything else IMHO becomes superfluous, secondary and irrelevant; that is, how can anything else matter? Should we consider ourselves to be Christian, we must then by definition believe that Christ is the Savior. If He is the Savior, then He alone does the saving, right? If He does, then what remains that we must do? Which law(s) must we follow that Christ has not satisfied and which are still needed for our salvation? I believe that ultimately, from God's perspective, and as stated by Paul in Rom 8:2 &3, that there are but two laws of significance. The first one we cannot grant to ourselves, and the second one we were all born under. Otherwise, why would God through Paul have so stated the following?

[Rom 8:2-3 KJV]
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:

As I stated, probably in a later post than the one you referenced, that becoming saved doesn't relieve those saved from performing good works (if that's what you consider the following of law). To the contrary, they have been called unto good works, but that emanates from becoming saved not for the gaining of it.

[Rom 10:3-4 KJV]
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

If I've missed or misunderstood your point I apologize and please let me know.

Well I was citing what I believed the other poster said to which you responded and to which I commented to yourself. But for what its worth salvation is more than eternal life. If I was making a point that was it.

 

[rogerg]

But for what its worth salvation is more than eternal life. If I was making a point that was it.

Hadn't thought of it that way before. Out of curiosity, besides it being life to the uttermost, what else do you see eternal life consisting of?

 

[rhomphaeam]

Hadn't thought of it that way before. Out of curiosity, besides it being life to the uttermost, what else do you see eternal life consisting of?

Contextual to the argument posited in this thread at the header OP - which is in any event spurious - I would say that the term we should be looking at is not the term eternal life - rather it is salvation. Eternal life is a spiritual possession - that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. You can see my view here Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, and Σάρξ.

It is not important that you do read it but what I am speaking about when I speak about salvation is much broader than the question of eternal life. It also speaks of the coming kingdom - so if you reject the millennium kingdom belief then what I have to say is worthless - still given the conduct of many believers I am assuming that some think that Jesus is going to return and just wink at all our sin.

You may also wish to look at this #5 in the same OP because that establishes my meaning based on Scripture. But as far as this thread is concerned then the chief argument has been that grace triumphs law and so because eternal life is the only issue then nothing else matters. That latter claim is where the issue arises. I know the arguments and you have made them clear yourself. I just think we should look a little deeper.

Addendum

You will find that this thread also explains things a little further should you be interested beyond curiosity.

The Trichotomous and Dichotomous View

Rhomphaeam

 

[rogerg]

scripture records how peter made a mistake when some saved by circumcision jews came to their fellowship - paul called him out publicly - paul said hearing the law makes sin arise -

I don't think it is in the hearing of the law brought sin, but rather, that law itself brought the assessment, measurement, and imputation of sin. Without law, sin could not/cannot be assessed, and hence, not imputed because until then, there was no law violated.
This brings up a very interesting and controversial topic: when did law actually become law?

How would you interpret this verse?

[1Co 15:22 KJV]
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

For if, "as in Adam all die", law must have existed from/by Adam. And if existing, then what brought
it into being because it wasn't always present. We are informed that:

[Gen 2:25 KJV]
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

but then we read:

[Gen 3:7 KJV]
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Question: what changed between Gen 2:25 and Gen 3:7 to cause that? Answer: law manifested in Gen 3:6

[Gen 3:6 KJV]
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.

The fruit of tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was law - law in concept - the law of law. By its name are we informed that Law provides demarcation (knowledge) between good and evil.

[Rom 3:20 KJV]
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

and

[Rom 5:13 KJV]
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

so, without law, no one would die because of Adam, because there would be no law existing to be violated