Is the Christian is required to keep the Law, more specifically the ten commandments? It is my position that, no, Christians are under no obligation to keep the Law of the old testament. On its face this is a controversial notion, but hopefully upon closer examination it should be clear and will make sense, and I believe it is in fact the biblical position.
When discussing the Law I will limit the scope to the ten commandments since it was God who commanded the ten as well as the other 600+ laws, which were established to set Israel apart as a peculiar people, and unless a specific distinction must be made the Law refers to the ten.
God chose Abram from among the people of the earth to bless, and from his descendants God would make a great nation (Gen. 12:2). Through Jacob, Abram's (now Abraham) son who is now called Israel (Gen. 32:28) God made what was to come to be known as the Nation of Israel. Israel as a nation was a people chosen by God to be His people. They were a people set apart from the surrounding peoples and nations, which were notoriously depraved, committing regularly heinous acts upon themselves and others (Gen. 6:5). God had a specific purpose for the nation of Israel, the Messiah was to be an Israelite. To keep Israel apart from the other surrounding nations God gave certain commandments to the nation of Israel (Exo. 20:2) in order to keep them morally sound and to keep them from falling into the same treachery as their neighbors. The reason this is pertinent to this discussion is that the Law was given to Israel, specifically Israel. The reason this is important is that there are promises and consequences related to obedience and disobedience to the Law.
The Law is basically a contract with the nation of Israel. This contract like any other contract is valid and applicable only to the parties to whom the contract is given. I think Christians have a tendency to view new testament Christians as a continuation of or a replacement to old testament Israelites, and are therefore entitled to the promises offered to the Jews. Unless otherwise stated, promises and Laws to the Jews apply only to the Jews. Even Paul makes the point of making the distinction that the Gentiles, did not have the Law but did the things of the Law since it was written on their hearts (Rom. 2:12-14).
Is the Christian church a continuation of or replacement to the Jews? I'm not so certain this is the case, and even if it were would not be relevant or make the argument for required obedience to the Law. First there is an explicit separation of Israel and Christians. In Matthew chapter 16, Jesus and Peter are discussing who Jesus is. Jesus asks "who do the people say I am?" (Matt. 16:13), and then "who do you say I am?" (Matt. 16:15). Peter of course gives the correct answer, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus then responds by saying that God has revealed that truth and on that truth He, Jesus, will build His church. I think this is an important way of wording the answer, namely in the future tense. Jesus had not yet been crucified and resurrected which would be the event which ushers in the new covenant. The church Jesus is speaking of is not yet in place, however Judaism and the Law were currently in place. There is no mention by Jesus that the church is the same as the set aside nation Israel, though the first Christians were converted Jews. There is a distinction between the church which is to come, and the "church" which is present.
God's plan was to bring about a new covenant which would be different from the original (Heb. 8:9), or old covenant, (Jer. 31:31, 32) which was broken by Israel. It would function in a new way. The old covenant was a written law, the new would be written on the hearts of believers (Heb 8:10). I take this to mean one's conscience. I firmly believe a believer's conscience does more to convict of sin then any written set of rules ever could. I take this notion of the Law being written on the heart to mean that before the new covenant was in place, the conscience was either non-existent, or radically different from what we experience today. I think most believers can attest to this, before becoming a believer you were a pretty good person, me too, but after you believed you are more sensitive to the little things you used to do with out a second thought. Even the unbeliever's conscience informs them when they do wrong, and while everyone has an innate knowledge of God, it is suppressed and the source for their conscience informing them of wrong is purposely unknown (Rom. 1:21-23, Heb. 8:11). But the unbeliever's conscience is not informative to the extent of the believer who has the benefit of the Holy Spirit who makes the believer more sensitive to sin. History can also attest to this. Before Christ came, life was very cheap and debauchery was rampant. People were slaughtered whole sale for any number of reasons including entertainment. Since the Advent, it has tapered off, people are looked upon with more value and debauchery was increasingly frowned upon as Christianity spread through out the world. There are of course exceptions to every rule, but reading through the old testament we see how depraved the peoples were that surrounded the Jews. So bad so that it showed no signs of stopping and as a result God ordered their extermination (Gen. 6:5).
Jesus, God Himself, would be the one to usher in the new covenant (Isa. 53:11-12; Psa. 22:25-29; Zech. 12:10; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Once the new is in place, the old is done away with and obsolete (Heb. 8:13, 2 Cor. 3:6). This means is it done with, there is no more obligation to fulfill the Law (Rom. 7:6). There was even some debate in the early church, that some new believers had claimed it was necessary to keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:5), and a letter was written in response claiming they, the Apostles, gave no such instruction (Acts 15:24), and advising they not be burdened beyond the essentials of abstaining from "things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell" (Acts 15:29). In fact, the Apostles questioned speaking of the Law of Moses, "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15:10). Certainly if obliged obedience to the Law was intended for the Christian church it would have been upheld here. Now that the new covenant is in place, not even the Jews, with whom God made the original covenant, are under the obligation to fulfil the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly by not once violating the Law (Heb. 7:27), and made the required sacrifice once and for all.
Now some might take exception with this line of reasoning thinking I am advocating or defending the idea of "carnal Christianity", not being obliged to the law means free reign to live a life of sin. Once a person has truly been regenerated becoming a believer, there is a desire to refrain from the life of sin to which he was once accustomed. By this I do not mean Christians do not sin, but the Christian is inwardly convicted of the sin he once abounded. The sensitivity to sin increases with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and though the Christian may sin, he does not want to, feels remorse when he does, and has a desire to repent (Rom. 7:15-21). The Law then is kept accidentally. It is kept out of love and thankfulness to God for His redemption. Keeping the Law begins to come naturally, though not perfectly, after being born again. Jesus himself says "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). Jesus here is saying, if you are someone who loves Him, you will keep the commandments. This is a descriptive verse not prescriptive. Jesus is not saying that those who claim to love Him must keep His commandments, but rather that the people who do in fact love Him will keep them.
What about Matthew 5:17-18, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."? In this passage is Jesus teaching the Law is in effect and will never pass away? It is true He did not come to destroy the law, which He did not, the Law was not abolished, it was completed. Before the crucifixion/resurrection the Law was still in effect and required to be obeyed by the Jews. Jesus was under the obligation to obey the law Himself (Gal. 4:4), which He did to perfection. Jesus' perfect keeping of the Law, His being crucified for the sins of man, and His resurrection from the dead conquering the effects of sin is the "until all is accomplished" to which He is referring, remember His words on the Cross "it is finished" (John 19:30). The Greek word used in the passage, "tetelestai" is a word used in the first century to indicate that a contractual obligation has been fulfilled. It was a release of the debtee to the debtor, the old covenant is now finished and the new is in effect.
I believe it is widely overlooked by Christians that many of Jesus' teachings, generally speaking, were to Jews. Jesus was not sent to the whole world, but only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt. 15:24), therefore His message and His audience consisted mainly of Jews who were under the Law. Before Jesus death and resurrection the old covenant, which was the required obedience of the Law, was still in place. It is not until after His resurrection that the obligation is removed and abolished and the new covenant is under effect. It is for this reason that a passage like Matthew 22:35-40, And of them, lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." is why it appears that Jesus is endorsing adherence to the Law. Now there are a few ways of looking at this. First, Jesus is answering a question posed to Him by an individual. I would answer that question the same way Jesus did. Just because Jesus answered the question that way, in that time, under that circumstance, does not mean it applies to us today. It was a Jewish man asking a Jewish teacher about the Jewish Law. One could ask me what the greatest traffic law is and I could give a similar answer. But traffic laws apply only to people who are driving. If I don’t drive, traffic laws don’t apply to me. Context is everything. Again pre-crucifixion/resurrection the Law was still in effect. The man inquiring of Jesus called Him "Teacher", which implies the man was a Jew, I do not think a gentile would seek Jesus for religious or theological teaching of the Jewish Law, and thus Jesus’ answer makes perfect sense when the context is taken into consideration. See the parallel passage in Mark 12:28-33 where the man inquiring of Jesus references Deut. 6:4-5, further indicating it was in part a Jewish theological discussion.
The Christian is not obliged to keep the Law, but will out of love and conviction from the Holy Spirit. In the same way I am not obligated to rub my wife's feet after a long day but will out of love for her; and she is not obligated to bake my favorite blue berry muffins for me, but out of love will. Likewise the believer keeps the Law out of love for God not obligation. The believer by being born again is given a new nature and is no longer a slave to sin. Having this new nature, he does the things of the Law because it is written on his heart and out of the love for God. It is not obedience to the Law I take umbrage with, after all not murdering and stealing are good things. It is the imposed obligation on the part of some believers. The Mosaic Law was a covenant made to a specific group of people, the descendants of Abraham, for a specific purpose. Now that a new covenant is in place, the old is obsolete and done away with, and even the Jews are under no obligation to it. Context is the key to understanding the promises of the bible, carefully reading the surrounding passages of a given text will help you to understand the theology of the bible.
23 comments:
Sin is breaking the Law, practicing sin, continual sin, is lawlessness. The Law exists to show us where we fall short. Merely not being bound by the Law does not mean it is not violated when we sin. The Law was not made for the righteous, but the unrighteous.
Are we not bound to "not sin"? Does not a righteous God demand that we not sin? So how are we not bound to the law and yes be bound to be righteous? And what law again are you referring to when you say it wasn't made for the righteous. Or when you say it shows us where we fall short. What law?
It almost sounds like you think that I believe the Law went *Poof*, that it is to be ignored, which is not the case. I refered in the article, that when I refer to the Law it is the "Ten Commandments" in general, since when Christians discuss the Law, it is the Ten to which they are usually refering even though the Ten is part of the whole, but broadly speaking the Law is the Mosaic law. God demands perfection, yes, but no one can attain perfect obedience, which under the Old covenant was the requirement.
Now the New Covenant is not like the Old.(Jer 31:32) The old has passed away and obselete in it's status as the "ruling covenant", it has been replaced (Heb 8:13), in it's effective capacity, now that the New in in place. The Old Covenant still shows us what sin is, and what perfection looks like. However as believers under the New Covenant, the requirement, the obligation, the necessary obedience is not there. The obedience comes from the believer's love and gratitute to God for salvation, it is obedience imposed on the believer by the believer himself, and the ability to obey from the aid of the Holy Spirit.
Our inability to obey does not relieve our obligation to obey. One of the motivations to obey is our love for the Lord, but another motivation is that he demands it.
The 10 commandments are God's Moral Law, not ceremonial or civil, so they do not pass away with the old covenant.
Let me ask another question, would Adam have sinned had he killed Eve?
If you would kindly include Scripture references it would help me give a proper response. Since context determines a true interpretation of any text.
I try not to make speculations from silence. Adam did not kill Eve, and we also do not have complete transcription of all conversations between God and Adam, so we do not know everything God instructed Adam to do and not do.
Ok, why was it wrong for Cain to kill able?
I will be happy to use Scripture verses, but before I do, we need to ask, how we know what is right and what is wrong. You say the law shows us what is right or wrong, but we don't have an obligation to be right? I don't follow that logic.
Since you seem to insist on dealing with hypotheticals I will attempt to address Adam murdering Cain.
First lets look at what Paul says in (Rom 5:13) "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law". So Paul is acknowledging that even though there was not yet Law (refering to the time of Adam) there was still sin, so scripture tells us the Law need not exist in order to sin. Additionally, even though sin did or could exist where there is no Law, without the Law sin is not imputed to the one sinning if the Law is not yet given.
What that means, and still supports my thesis in the above post, now that the Law was given, sin was imputed to man, but under the new covenant, sin is not imputed to the believer, it is reckoned to Christ, further showing the believer is not bound by the Law.
Finally to address your hypothetical scenario, while we do not know the ramifications of Adam murdering Eve, we do know the ramification of Cain murdering Abel. We see God cursed the ground to not yield it's potential, since Cain was a farmer this is relevant to his survival. Since the ground would not yield it's potential if forced Cain to persue a life of being a nomad in search of better producing land. There is no mention of the sin of Cain being reckoned to him.
Please don't misunderstand me. My desire is not to chase hypothetical answers, it is to demonstrate the existence of the 10 commandments prior to God writing them. (I should point out, that the 10 commandments are the only portion of the Law written by God himself (Gen. 6)).
Cain killing Able was murder. Murder was sin, prior to God delivering that message to Israel. 1 John 3 clearly says Cain belonged to the Evil One. His actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. How is there a right and wrong without a standard for what is right and wrong. John even goes so far to command us not to be like Cain...So why the strong directive not to follow in his footsteps if there is not an obligation to obey, only an obedience that comes from love for our God?
Also - in Eze 28 and Isaiah 14 we see glimpses of the fall of Satan. He coveted the throne. He put other gods before God...that was all before the fall of Adam. So even before the fall, there was a law (even thought it didn't look like it did after moses), because sin caused angels to fall. There cannot be an existence of sin without a law, because John defines sin as lawlessness.
My argument is that the 10 Commandments stand apart from the other civil and ceremonial laws (those which have fallen away in the New Covenant) as the Moral Law of God. This Moral Law of God is a representation of his righteousness, which has not changed, and cannot change. The standard to what is right and wrong has always been the same. Sure each government creates its own laws for their own people, but when we speak about morality, it transcends all nations and governments. Jesus in Gospels, when asked what the greatest commandment was - responded with a summary of the 10 commandments.
Also you still have not answered my question. You say the law did not go poof - but you haven't told me what it is? What should I obey out of love for God? Lets say you are right, that we don't have an obligation like the Jews did - Lets say we obey to show our love - what do we obey? what is the standard?
Please don't misunderstand me. My desire is not to chase hypothetical answers, it is to demonstrate the existence of the 10 commandments prior to God writing them. (I should point out, that the 10 commandments are the only portion of the Law written by God himself (Gen. 6)).
Cain killing Able was murder. Murder was sin, prior to God delivering that message to Israel. 1 John 3 clearly says Cain belonged to the Evil One. His actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. How is there a right and wrong without a standard for what is right and wrong. John even goes so far to command us not to be like Cain...So why the strong directive not to follow in his footsteps if there is not an obligation to obey, only an obedience that comes from love for our God?
In my last response we see that Paul reports that even without the Law there was sin, but without the Law there is no imputation of sin. So in the example of Cain and Abel, did Cain know he had done wrong, probably. It did not seem as though he was repentive, just eventually distraught over the result.
There cannot be an existence of sin without a law, because John defines sin as lawlessness
Paul seems to say otherwise in Rom(5:13). But keep in mind that at the time of John's writing, the Law had already been given, so breaking the Law results sin that is imputed unlike the instance of Cain. Continual breaking the Law is lawlessness, which is evidence you are not saved, since Jesus said "if you love Me you will keep My commands" but again notice He does not say "must".
Also you still have not answered my question. You say the law did not go poof - but you haven't told me what it is? What should I obey out of love for God? Lets say you are right, that we don't have an obligation like the Jews did - Lets say we obey to show our love - what do we obey? what is the standard?
I'm pretty sure I had answered the question, but I'm not sure you are satisfied with the answer, or I may not have been clear. As I stated in the article, the "what" that is obeyed is the Law, it is the "why" you and I are having trouble agreeing on. I believe your position is required obedience, my position is out of love and gratitude, without the burden of requirement.
Excellent, the law then is defined by us both as the 10 commandments, and sin is lawlessness, so any breaking of those 10 is sin.
Also, please know I do believe we should obey out of love and gratitude for all that God has done. I also believe God requires us to be holy as he is holy. Hence the command, be holy as I am holy...
Please help me understand then, what does God require of us, if anything?
Would you please explain to me how you conclude the ten commandments are not part of the Mosaic Law?
Sure - after you answer my question. What does the Bible say God requires of the followers of Christ. I am only asking you the question you asked me.
I'd like to stay away from a 'tit-for-tat' interaction. It seems that you engaged me on my article because you believe I have misinterpreted the verses I cited to make my case.
I would like to continue to interact on the merits of my arguments, so if you would kindly, make your case, why and where my argument breaks down. Where has my reasoning gone awry in my article?
Ok, then I will ask the question (to which I do not believe you have an answer) while addressing your article. You say that the Christian obeys accidentally, and that some people might misunderstand your position to endorse carnal Christianity. If the believer is not allowed to live a carnal life, (which you tacitly say they cannot do) then you are subscribing to a law. You are not endorsing sin, nor would you say the Bible does, but you are saying the Bible does not forbid it. Because to forbid sin, the Bible must have a law, or a requirement to not sin.
You see I don't believe you can admit that God requires nothing of man, because to do so, would be unbiblical, and you know it. You know the many verses that command men to obey, I have pointed out the most obvious " be holy as I am holy." there are myriads of other verses that command Christians not to be involved with sin.
So, your article isn't only flawed in it's foundation, the point you make about having no obligation to God is wholly and fully untrue.
The reason I have not gone point by point is because I either need to hear you say God requires nothing of man, or that you are flawed, and can be open to hearing how.
Finally I hope you would also understand that your position flies in the face of many great, well-respected theologians, many of whom you might even read, who would in the least admit that God has some requirements for man.
Now please tell me how "be holy..." is not a command.
If the believer is not allowed to live a carnal life, (which you tacitly say they cannot do) then you are subscribing to a law. You are not endorsing sin, nor would you say the Bible does, but you are saying the Bible does not forbid it. Because to forbid sin, the Bible must have a law, or a requirement to not sin
Here is the first problem I would like to address, you rewording or interpretation of my position. I have never said the bible does not forbid sin, of course it does, but Paul did address where there is no law, there is sin, it is just not imputed. Second, anyone can live however they want, the believer will live a life of consistent with being a believer. It is not that a believer cannot live a life of carnality, a believer will not do so, and if a "believer" did live a life of carnality, I would venture to say he is not a believer.
You see I don't believe you can admit that God requires nothing of man, because to do so, would be unbiblical, and you know it. You know the many verses that command men to obey, I have pointed out the most obvious " be holy as I am holy." there are myriads of other verses that command Christians not to be involved with sin
God demands faith and trust in Him, it is found throughout the New Testament, it is by grace we are saved, not works [of the law]. Romans 4 delves into this. I agree the the NT teaches Christians to not be involved with sin, but is that because we are still under the law, or because it leads to sanctification?
So, your article isn't only flawed in it's foundation, the point you make about having no obligation to God is wholly and fully untrue.
This is still an assertion, you have not cited and Scripture to this affect, you have only stated I am wrong. You have not addressed any of the verses I have cited in the article to show my understanding of them is wrong.
You may not simply make the claim, you must make a case for your position. Demanding that I admit defeat without providing me a reason is an unreasonable request.
Additionally, Paul's understanding flew in the face of the thousands of years the Pharisees understanding. The Reformer's understanding flew in the face of the Catholic church. Merely dissenting from commonly held beliefs is not a reason to abandon them.
I am going to have to ask you to make your case now. Interpret the verses I cite, explain why my understanding of them is wrong, and explain why Christians are still under the law.
Post 1 of 2
John,
In Romans 13: 8-12 Paul (the special apostle to Gentile Christians) commands the church to love their neighbors. He further explains that love is a fulfillment of the law. The Law (10 Commandments which he quotes) are fulfilled by our doing no harm to our neighbors. The 7th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th commandments are listed (in that order) and summarized by “love your neighbor as yourself.” Then he defines love by saying, “Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” The context to here shows he is not speaking to the Jews. He give us the responsibility to love (do no harm) to one another. This is also not a suggestion, he is commanding his church to act this way.
In Ephesians 6:1 Paul tells children in the Gentile church to obey the 5th commandment because it is right. In Matthew 22: 37 Jesus also says the greatest commandment is Deut 6:5 and the second is like it Lev 19:18. He was quoting OT Scriptures as he corrected the Sadducees and Pharisees (he had been corrected them for several chapters in Matthew.) Yet, no one in the Gentile churches that Paul and the apostles established would say we are not obligated to love God because Jesus didn’t say that to us, he said it to Jewish leaders? Again, Paul in Romans 13 requires the early church, and all of us to love our neighbors (which is in turn loving God as evidenced by Matthew 22)
Furthermore, in Matthew 5:17, Jesus was not giving Jewish answers to Jewish people. He was discussing the Kingdom of Heaven which he came to institute by his teachings and saving acts. He prefaces his Sermon by saying, “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fufill them….(v19) Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” His kingdom is the topic, and you’ll notice that he says, “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments…” What commandments? Well, Murder (5:21-26), Adultery (5:27-32) and taking God’s name in vain (5:33-37). All of his sermon is concluded in 7:21-27 saying that those who have heard my sermon and obeys by putting them into practice is like a wise man, but if you do not, you are like a foolish man. Are not Scriptures rife with examples and commands not be foolish but to be wise? Commands to be righteous and not wicked? Ephesians 5:1ff “Be imitators of God…v 15 Be very careful, then, how you live – not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore, do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs…Submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord….Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church…6:1, Children obey your parents…1 Peter 1:13ff – “…be self-controlled…v14 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy.” Chapter 2:1 “Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice, and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind…”
I could continue with many many more verses. Many of which command us to repent and be baptized (All of the Gospels). Do not love the world of anything in it…1 John 2:18. All of these are requirements of the Christian.
There is a book, you can purchase it here (http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Decalogue-Critique-Covenant-Theology/dp/0965495590/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1284927746&sr=8-1), that will help you understand the error of the New Covenant thought that if it isn’t repeated in the NT it is not required. Much of the OT is useful as 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 states. In the book Richard Barcellos has an excellent exegesis on Romans 2:12-16 that will answer what I think in response to your explanation. I cannot speak for you and your training, but I am not qualified to exegete passages as well as those who have formal professional training in Systematic Theology, Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, Greek or Hebrew…I can read men who are qualified to explain these things, and do my best to pray for a solid understanding, but I cannot rely on my own understanding. This is not a scapegoat, but I believe my response is already long enough.
I also don’t believe this needs to be said, but I should be sure. The obligation we have to obey is not an obligation for salvation. Clearly the Scriptures don’t teach works based salvation, and I believe you are correct that we have a desire to obey that flows from gratitude of the riches of grace. We also, have a standard, to which we will all be held accountable, and that standard is God’s moral Law…The Ten Commandments.
John,
On September 8, 2010 8:33 AM, you said:
---
However as believers under the New Covenant,
the requirement, the obligation, the necessary
obedience is not there. The obedience comes
from the believer's love and gratitude to
God for salvation, it is obedience imposed on
the believer by the believer himself, and the
ability to obey from the aid of the Holy Spirit.
---
You say that obedience to God's commands under
the New Covenant is self-imposed. If there is
no requirement or obligation, how is God
righteous in disciplining us (Heb. 12)? For
what would He be disciplining us? Transgressing
His commands? Not having enough love and
gratitude to Him?
To borrow your concept from an offline
discussion of ours, is God's discipline of His
non-obligated children a violation of their
libertarian free will, or have they given up
their free will as bond-servants of Christ,
or...?
John,
On September 9, 2010 6:36 PM, you said:
---
First lets look at what Paul says in (Rom 5:13) "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law". So Paul is acknowledging that even though there was not yet Law (referring to the time of Adam) there was still sin, so scripture tells us the Law need not exist in order to sin. Additionally, even though sin did or could exist where there is no Law, without the Law sin is not imputed to the one sinning if the Law is not yet given.
---
On September 10, 2010 5:10 PM, you said:
---
In my last response we see that Paul reports that even without the Law there was sin, but without the Law there is no imputation of sin.
---
Your conclusion is that Cain's sin was not reckoned to him. I believe that this is a misinterpretation, and I also believe that you are conflating "law" with "the Law."
To slightly paraphrase Paul's other writings, there is no death without sin, and there is no sin without law (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:56, Rom. 7:7-8). Whether that is "law" with a little 'l' or the Law, they are both established by God as standards and obligations of conduct. Rom. 5:12-14 is saying that Adam's original sin was imputed to all men because before the Law was given to Moses, there was law that existed for all men. Because of original sin, death reigned from Adam until Moses.
To put it another way, it's not saying that before the Law, sin was not imputed. Rather, because there was sin before the Law, it necessarily follows that there must also have been law (to impute sin) before the Law. Verse 14 says that death reigned from Adam until Moses, so there was sin from Adam until Moses, which requires law from Adam until Moses.
When you say "without the Law sin is not imputed to the one sinning if the Law is not yet given", you have conflated "the Law" with "law", which existed from Adam until Moses.
But don’t you see that this only serves to prove my case. Paul, in talking to gentiles, had the opportunity in this situation, to instruct them to obey the law. Instead he instructs them to love their neighbor, which fulfills the law. This is exactly my point. We, as believers, fulfill the letter of the law by our actions out of love, rather than the obligation the letter of the law brings
Here again, to obey the commandment because it is the right thing to do, not under obligation. If the intent was obedience for required behaviors sake, he just as easily have said, not to mention more naturally said since he was a Pharisee, obey the 5th commandment because it is the law and God requires it of you. This didn’t happen, and serves to show it is not an obligation, but rather the right thing to do. I realize Jesus was quoting OT scriptures, but I address why He would be, and why there is no conflict to my position by doing so.
Do you really think Jesus was not addressing Jews? Did the gentiles consider the “law and the prophets” to hold any weight? I addressed the passage where Jesus says He did not come to abolish the law or the prophets”, so there is nothing more needed to be said except to re-read that section of the article. Remember obedience to the law is not the issue of the article; it is the required obedience which is no longer required. The entire piece supports the idea that the law is still followed, what has changed is the reason it is followed.
These are all the characteristics of a believer. Paul is outlining what a true believer should be acting like. Not one time does Paul ever say, in any passage here or anywhere you cite that we should be acting a certain way because the law requires it of us. I realize these passages can look like Paul is putting obligations on us, but I see no emphasis on required obedience because the law demands it. Remember Jesus said “If you love me you will keep My commandments”, He never said must. The New covenant is not like the old.
Tom...
That observation - the difference between "l"aw and "L"aw doe not undermine my conclusion. I agree there is "l"aw, the breaking of it brings death. The "l"aw is derived from God's nature and perfect character and all men violate it. Anyone outside the covenantal promise in the OT was out of luck for lack of a better term, the benefits gained from obeying the written law to the Jews was not available to them because the covenant was not made with them, only the Jews.
the difference today is now the New covenant is made with the world, rather than the chosen people of Israel. Obedience has not changed, only the reason for it. It was required of by the Jews, it is no longer, just like my children must obey my law, but other children are under no obligation to it.
Tom...
Unfortunately these comments do not post in order that I allow them to be published, but instead the order that you write them. My above comment was in response to your comment refering to Romans 5:13 and Cain, this is to the offline discussion.
Im not sure quite how to explain myself based on the way you put your questions, so I will do my best. God's discipline for wayward believers gets them back on the right path. Think back to our study on proverbs, there are right ways to live life and wrong ways.
The law exists to show us where we fall short. But what is the effect of breaking the law to you, personally? Are you condemned? No. weren't you justified the moment you believed? What is justification? Can your justification be removed by sin? If sin can cancel the cross how in the world can the cross cancel sin to begin with?
If the law now comes with required obedience, what is the penalty to you for breaking it? dont you break it? I do, you do, but what is the consequence? We as believers no longer have the consequence os sin which is death. Sure our bodies die, but is that a punishment? I dont think so, it will be a blessing!
Post a Comment