What Are God's Laws?

[Garry]

What are God's laws and which ones are we still under today? It would be helpful if you listed the appropriate chapter and verse(s).

Thank you.
Garry

[Esquire]

I almost got to ask Him in person this afternoon.

I was driving over to the bank in our sleepy little downtown when a truck slammed by me, close enough to touch, passing between me and oncoming traffic. I was doing 15 or 20 max, and he was doing 60 or so. It's a small 2 lane with no turn lane. He was being hotly pursued by 6 or 8 sheriff's cars and I eased up the bank onto the sidewalk. I did not want to narrowly escape death from the fugitive, only to get nailed by a squad car!

After they were gone and my heart quit hammering I eased on over the hill to discover that the guy in the truck had somehow turned around and was careening up the street towards me, nearly out of control. I got my truck well off the road, just as he pulled adjacent to me and swerved onto a sideroad, amid clouds of protesting rubber.

It was/is a good reminder that our time here is fleeting.

As the Good Book says: "All flesh is grass, and the goodliness thereof is as the flowers of the field. The grass withers, and the flowers fade away, but the Word of the Lord endures forever."

I'm thanking Him that my family got to hear about this adventure from me, and not from the police chaplain.

[BLACK WOLF]

Thank God you alright Mike! I'm glad you are still here with us!

Ray ;)

[Cato]

Before the Ten Commandments were given, sin was still sin; man just had no measuring stick to go by.

God entered into a covenant relationship with the people group through whom He chose to work; the Jews, in fulfillment of promises to Abraham, and even promises He made in the Garden (He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise Him on the heel).

As a part of the consumation of the Covenant with the Jews, after being freed from bondage in Egypt, God gave His law, what we call the Ten Commandments. They were written on stone, front and back, implying that they were complete, with no room for addition and on a permanent document, so to speak (on stone). As I understand it, the nature of a covenant agreement was that each party made a permanent committment to keep his covenant vows and his obligation to do so was not contingent on the other party. They Jews agreed to live by the law. God committed to be their God. But salvation was never achieved by the law keeping. Hebrews clarifies that the saints were saved by faith. The giving of the law was made so that the people of God could have some kind of a standard by which to live, and know they were living in a way that pleased God.

After the giving of the Ten Commandments, Moses, through the inspiration of God, was given specific application of that law to the Jewish community of the day, through what we call the Mosaic law (written on parchment, not a permanent doc). As I understand it, some of it was for the people of that society in that day. We look to the New Testament, which is sort of the Holy Spirit's explanation and interpretation of the Old Testament for us, to see how those laws should be applied to us after Jesus came.

The permanent law (the commandments), is referred to as the "prescriptive law". The application of that law to the day is referred to as the "descriptive law".

For example, the prohibition of the eating of shellfish was a part of the descriptive law. It was basically unhealthy, so God said don't do it. But in the New Testament Paul clarified that the eating of a particular food does not constitute sin (Romans 14: 14,15 & 20).

I still do not understand all of this. But this is what I have been taught.

[Garry]

Cato, my understanding is very simular to yours.

Before the Ten Commandments were given, sin was still sin; man just had no measuring stick to go by.

I still think man needs a measuring stick to go by.

Does anyone but me find it strange that God says sin is the transgession of his law's but after all of these years man does not have a clear understanding of what these laws are and which ones we are still under.

I keep asking myself if it's just the ten commandments or are there other laws from God that still apply.

Thanks Cato.

[Esquire]

Stickbow,

Remind me what passage you are referring to? I just want to get on the same page - I think you posted the reference elsewhere but would you mind doing so again?

Thanks.

Mike

[Garry]

1John 2:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us or our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

This verse and many others implies that we must know what sin is if we are to confess them. God's laws are the measuring stick Cato referred to. The Holy Spirit convicts us of what? Violating God's laws.

[Garry]

Mike, if you are refering to God's defination of sin the verse is 1John 3:4.

Mike, you and anyone else on this web site are more than welcome to address me as Garry instead of Stickbow.

[Esquire]

Garry,

Thanks for the reference - I'm with you now.

I'm not sure if I find our inability to strictly define 'the law' strange as much as interesting. The Bible says much about our relationship to God and each other, as well as sin and the law, that gives much guidance. But I suspect sin is not cut and dried across the board for a reason.

Look what the Pharisees did when there was a list of laws. Whew! No one wants that again. Jesus came not to abolish the law but fufill it. Unpacking the Sermon on the Mount is a worthwhile exercise - one that could take a lifetime.

Do you think something can be a sin for one person and yet permissable for another?

Some sins are cut and dried, obviously. There is such thing as evil and moral absolute truth. And I do not believe in moral relativism or playing lifeboat.

But are not some things left between a man and God? And is it not better so?

Mike

[Garry]

Here's a reply to an e-mail I sent to a ministry asking them what are God's laws and which ones still apply.
================================================== =======
Dear Garry,

Thank you for your question. God’s laws include physical aspects, and spiritual aspects. All laws given by God are for our physical as well as our spiritual well being. With that in mind, there are laws regarding what foods we may eat, quarantine from disease, childrearing, marriage, and many other subjects. Obviously, the Ten Commandments are the foundation for our spiritual conduct, but they do also include physical aspects. The first four direct our relationship to God, the last six show how we should interact with our fellow man. All of those laws are still in effect.

The Old Testament included laws of sacrifice. Those were in effect until the sacrifice of Christ, which truly removed the sins of mankind. At the time of His death, they were the ordinances which were nailed to the cross (Col. 2).

Some laws regarding marriage or other things were given to Israel by Moses in the OT. Christ plainly shows that they were allowed because of the rebellious attitudes of the Israelites, but were not the original intent of God when He made humankind, and the original laws were still in force.



The laws regarding clean and unclean foods are listed in Lev. 11, and Deut. 14. There are physical reasons why pig, swan, and snakes (for instance), were never intended to be eaten. That reason is, they do not have ways to be rid of the poisons they eat. Therefore, if eaten, they themselves impart poison to the eater.



If I can be of further help, please let us know.



Personal Correspondence Department

[Garry]

From Cato,
God gave His law, what we call the Ten Commandments. They were written on stone, front and back, implying that they were complete, with no room for addition and on a permanent document, so to speak (on stone).

The giving of the law was made so that the people of God could have some kind of a standard by which to live, and know they were living in a way that pleased God.

Mike, I am not sure that sin is not cut and dried. I am beginning to think that we have just never focused on God’s definition of what sin is and we have not put together a list of all of God's laws that are still in effect.

Mike, you ask "Do you think something can be a sin for one person and yet permissible for another"? Good question. Remember the story in Mark when Jesus and the disciples picked food from the fields on the Sabbath and the Pharisees accused Jesus and his disciples of sinning by violating the Sabbath commandment. What do you think Jesus meant when he answered by saying the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath? I think he was saying it was not a sin even though it was one of God’s laws in the Ten Commandments because he Jesus was not bound by the law that he created. So, my answer to your question is no, I don’t think something can be a sin for one person and not another unless God has given someone permission to violate his laws. What’s your take on these two verses – Mark 2: 27-28

[BLACK WOLF]

I have to agree with what that ministry shared with you.

Sin is noun, which is based upon an action taken, which is based upon a choice, which is based on personal and outside influences.

As you can see the foundation of commiting a sin starts at the thought process and from outside influences.

So what motivates a person to choose one way or the other will determine if the choice will become a sin as the Bible has defined it for us.

Therefore, if your motivation to do something isn't based on Biblical principles or glorifing God, I believe the choice will become a sin.

Ray ;)

[Esquire]

Garry,

A couple of things occur to me as I read what you wrote. One of them is that I am not sure God wants us putting together a list of all of his laws that are still in effect. What would we do with such a list? Try to keep it, I suppose. I think we'd all too easily lose sight of the 2 greatest commandments, in which all of the law and the prophets are summarized, if we had access to such a list. We (human beings) would be tempted to spend a lot of effort organizing our externals, our outward appearances. And that outward conformity is not what God values.

I think he is after our hearts and minds and wants to have a relationship with us. I have my very serious doubts that such a list would be condusive to fostering such a relationship.

The reason I asked about something that can be a sin for one person and not another is because I think a decent working definition of sin is "anything that separates us from God." Paul says all things are possible but not permissable. Will a man who lights a cigarette or drinks a beer or a shot of bourbon be guilty of sin? Maybe.

Martin Luther committed no sin when he drank beer from a stein that had the Lord's prayer engraved on the side. But a reformed alcholic who isdragged away by his own desires and enticed and gives in to them for selfish reasons may indeed be committing an act that seperates ( or "comes between") him and God. By deliberately doing what he knows displeases God he may be taking liberties that are not available to him, personally, and thereby sinning.

As for Jesus saying the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, I do not believe he was saying that he was not bound by the ten commandments. I think he was chastizing the pharisees who had apparantly made a fine and nefarious art of holding the rules over everyone else's heads. By "keeping the Sabbath" in ways that please God, we restore our hearts, minds and souls. By turning the Sabbath into a blunt instrument to be used against men for the purpose of subjugating them to the pharisee's will, they were actually violating God's laws in deeper ways than were those who did good on that day.

Jesus, IMO, was telling them that they, the "keepers of God's rule lists", had strayed so very from from the heart of God that they no longer understood how to truly keep God's law.

Mike

[Garry]

Therefore, if your motivation to do something isn't based on Biblical principles or glorifying God, I believe the choice will become a sin.

I am sorry Ray but unless you or someone can show me where God's word supports your defination I will stick with God's definition that sin is the transgression of the law - his laws. We will just have to agree that it's ok to disagree on this.

However, I would still appreciate more input on what are God's laws and which ones still apply. Do we all agree that the Ten Commandments still apply and what are your thoughts on the food laws? What other laws do you think still apply today?

Thanks again,
Garry

[hogtamer]

Esquire: (The lawyer): "Teacher, what is the greatest commandment?
Jesus (knowing it was a loaded question): "The first commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. The second is like unto it; love your neighbor as you love yourself.""

and from Michah..... "what does the Lord require? To love mercy, to do justly, and to walk humbly with your God."

The best I can do with out my Bible here. Have a blessed weekend.

[BLACK WOLF]

hogtamer,

If that is your best...well, I think you hit a homerun!

That pretty much sums up exactly what I feel and was trying to share.

"The first commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. The second is like unto it; love your neighbor as you love yourself.""

and from Michah..... "what does the Lord require? To love mercy, to do justly, and to walk humbly with your God."

One of the key phrases for me concerning this topic is "to do justly", which to me is basically WWJD ;)

See ya guys later....May God Bless you all!

Thanks,

Ray ;)

[Swanny]

Hey all, I'm a newbie in that I've just registered today, but I've utilized this site for the past year in reading all the good information that is coming out of it, especially with the newly-famed DAS bow. Rob's got a good site here. So I hope I'm not being rude in just jumping in..this topic in this forum caught my eye and I've been wrestling with this very same issue for years....still wrestling with areas of confusion though!

Hi Garry! Nice to 'meet' you on this forum. Hope I get to meet you in person one day - I've enjoyed our email exchange about bows and such for the past 6 months or so. Your question about what/which/whose laws are we under today has been a very important question and heavily wrestled with to many in the history of the church. I personally have seemed to benefit more in my understanding of law on a practical level from a perspective known as New Covenant Theology, though I was taught in grade school on up from a classical dispensational (Lewis Sperry Chafer/Charles Ryrie) perspective.

Gonna try to keep my response as short and brief as possible due to the nature of the question (multi-faceted) in light of the greater over-arching scheme of redemptive history that is found in Scripture. Speaking from a chronological standpoint, I believe one could be relatively confident that from the time of the fall in the garden to the time of Moses there was no codified ethical law that men were held accountable to. Paul states in Rom. 5:12-14 that during this era sinful men (there was all kinds of rampant wickedness for sure) didn't have a written law, but still perished because of the foundational principle of imputation...that of Adam's high-handed rebellion against God's commandment in the garden...all sinned in Adam....physical and spiritual death is meritted. Having said that, there was some sort of understood instruction passed down from generation to generation concerning the necessity of sacrifices, and the few God-lovers we read about in this time period did observe this.

In comes Moses, who is really the first to be heralded as a prophet. He was the mediator of the Covenant on Sinai between God and the people of Israel (and them only Rom.2:13,3:2). The exodus out from Egypt was the 'redemptive' event the giving of this covenant heeled upon. The terms of the Covenant included the Ten Commandments (they were part and parcel of the terms....God wrote them on stone tablets), but also included the sixhundred and some laws in the Torah (Moses wrote these down)...Exodus chapter 20 and following. Actually, the people agreed to keep the terms even before they heard them (Ex. 19), my assumption is that they were more interested in obtaining the physical blessings and promises that the covenant promised upon full obedience, than they were in finding out if they could actually be faithful covenant keepers. If the people didn't fully keep the laws, they would be trampled on and destroyed (Deut. 27-29), so it was a conditional covenant based on law keeping. As far as I can tell, the nation was not promised eternal justification (right standing with God) if they obeyed fully, but rather the 'good' life....long life, healty herds, no conflict with outside nations, etc. etc.. Heb. 10:4 also supports this that animal sacrifices couldn't take away law-breaking offenses racked up and provide real forgiveness of sins. Another interesting thing is that they actually broke the terms of the covenant before they even saw the tablets of stone (Ex. 32). The ratification of this covenant was made by a prophet who built an altar on a mountain and sprinkled blood on the people who agreed to keep it, and then ate a full blown meal with some old men (excluding the people), Ex. 24.

Much more can be noted about this covenant, but it wasn't know as the 'old' covenant until something new came and replaced it! Moses gave a hint of this in Deut. 18:15 when he told the people another prophet (greater...by implication) was coming...listen to Him (don't keep listening to Moses...by implication). We have apostolic verification in Acts. 3 when Peter told the people that Christ was the fulfillment of this prophecy (Peter quotes Deut.). Moses was told by God many times that the majority of the people had stubborn and unrepentant hearts and would fail to keep the terms of the covenant. Obviously they as a national whole were characterized by gross lawbreaking....in come destruction and desolation via the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities etc. etc.. Several prophets including Ezekial and Jeremiah predict a better covenant to come in which people will not be lawbreakers (Jer. 31, can't seem to recall the Ez. passage right now). In comes Christ incarnate deity.

Christ is referred to as the Prophet we are now to listen to (Heb. 1:1). The people in Heb. were told not to go back under Moses and the law, but to observe and understand what exactly Christ has accomplished for His people in His new covenant. The whole entire book fleshes out why He is the better prophet, the better priest, the better King, and why the covenant He mediates is better! But I'm jumping ahead of myself.....

Just before he sheds his blood on a mountain, Christ inaugurates a new covenant...check out Mt. 26:27. But he does this at a full blown meal with his disciples! Sounds very familiar to a preceeding covenant, but this covenant depends not upon the faithfulness of the sinful people, but of the faithfulness of Christ! His redemptive event is the foundational impetus of His right to give Law! Sound familiar? Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Old (Mt. 5:17,18) via his life, death, and resurrection. Not only that, but he made void the Old Covenant and ALL it's requirements are no longer binding on the Jewish people (remember they were the ethnic recipients of the covenant)....Col. 2, especially Heb. 8:13. The incarnate and risen Christ is the Lord and Lawgiver over His covenant keepers...the church (Eph. 1). All of the Old Covenant in reality pointed towards and anticipated Him! The old was the shadow/type, the new is the reality/antitype. Listen to Him (and Him alone)...Mt. 17:5!!!

This covenant has law (or codified ethics)....Christ was raising the law in this era to new heights in Mtt.5-7. Adultery now included lust (a man or woman was not stoned under the Old for lusting after another...how could Moses be sure?, but now the Spirit of God will convict our hearts for violation of this law). Murder now included hatred (remember the cities of refuge people could flee to if they killed someone accidentally and were hated for it? Remember all those Psalms where David profusely prayed that God would bring terrible destruction on those who hated His law...and on their children's children?...now we are commanded to pray FOR our enemies), and so on.

The apostles who wrote letters to the churches referred to the new law not as the Ten Commandments, but as the Law of Christ. (It's interesting to note that the law to keep the Sabbath was a 'sign' that they were willing to keep the rest of the covenant, Ex.31:12, to fail to keep the sign of the covenant and pick up sticks would get someone stoned...Christ is our fulfillment, our perfect lawkeeper, our new covenant giver...so we aren't under the obligation to keep anymore Sabbaths...He is our Sabbath rest and we continually rest in Him! Heb 3,4).

Paul the apostle drew upon the old/new themes and motifs quite a bit - his writings are saturated with this. No more Jew/Gentile distinction, but all are one in Christ - Eph. 3. Read II Cor. 3 - everyone now who loves Christ is a minister of the new covenant since we have the Spirit of life within us...the Holy Spirit of God. The New covenant produces what the Old couldn't do (something was 'wrong with it' Heb.8:7)....people who love to obey from the heart...people who are truly being sanctified, putting off sinful practices, and putting on Christ's likeness. Our hearts are new or circumcised (the majority of the Israelites had hardened stoney hearts), and we long to keep his commandments since they are not burdensome. We truly desire God and all His Glory! We're not soley motivated by what He has to offer, but for WHO He is in all His splendor and majesty! We have new eyes! All things are new, I Cor. 5:17, we live and move in a new era, a different way of relating to God and our fellow brother in Christ. So now we have the responsibility to figure out how exactly the law of Christ is applicable to our individual situations, ie. laws of expediency...something may be lawful, but not profitable for the edification of ourselves in Christ or our brother... http://www.soundofgrace.com/v11/n8/epediency_mkm_118.htm We are also told that whatever we do we must do it in an attitude of faith, or else it is sin, Rom. 14:23. There are areas of freedom, and 'disputable matters' - Rom. 14. Loving your believing brother might possibly take on a different flavor than loving your neighbor if he is an unbeliever. This forum is a good start for getting help and insight of other on a specific situation any of us might find ourselves in, but nothing replaces the local assembly we should be committed to.

Anyone ever read "All Things New...The significance of newness in Biblical theology" by Carl Hoch? Has a couple good chapters that will infatuate the reader with Christ and His Redemptive work.

Ok. Gotta quit! I 'new' this was going to be too long. Sorry! :mistake:

Ps. Hi Camp Cook....my wife and I miss seeing you and your hubby!

[Cato]

Swanny,

Outstanding to have you out here. I look forward to reading your input.

This forum has great potential to help us all in our walk, and growth. Please jump in there again!!

Very interesting comments.

Cato

[larry]

Garry, you really need to study Romans chapter 3-8 for a full understanding of Gods law and how it applies today.

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for the law is the knowledge of sin.

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe" Ro. 3 19-22

[Camp Cook]

Hey Swanny!

Long time! Tell Wendy & the kids hi for me.

THis is a good thread. We sure have been getting deep lately :highfive:

I for one am very thankful for God's grace and the freedom in Christ that we have been given. I believe the Old Testament laws are there for our learning and as a guide but since the cross, we are no longer in bondage to the law but in bondage to Christ.

[Garry]

Hi Ken,

I was just thinking about you yesterday and I marked my calendar to send you an e-mail later next month after your move to see how you are doing and to catch up on things.

Here's another e-mail from a different ministry.
================================================== =======

Hi Garry:

The ten commandments show us what sin is. Rom 3:23 says that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". Rom 5:12 says, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Therefore all are desperately in need of a Saviour. Christ is that Saviour. Without him, we would all be on a slick slide to Hell.

In Gal 3:21-28, Paul explains, "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

1John 3:23 says, "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."

In John 13:34, Jesus said, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

Rom 13:8 says, "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."

[Garry]

Hi Larry,

Please help me understand how Roman's 3 19:22 helps to define God's law's or which laws still apply.

"Now we know that whatever the law says"

What law is verse 19 refering to?

the law is the knowledge of sin

The above words are almost a mirror image of 1John 3:4 - Sin is the transgression of the law.

Thank you,
Garry

[Cato]

Stick,

My understanding of those verses is:

The law speaks to those under the law........if you are not saved throught Christ, you are under the law, and it speaks to you of your total inablility to keep it.

That every mouth may be closed.........when you honestly compare your life to the law, you see your total failure and inability to live righteously, therefore you are without argument, and your mouth is closed.

All the world will become accountable to God because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified.........when we truly see our inability, we see that we cannot justify ourselves by keeping the law, and we are driven to see we must have some remedy, a Savior.

through the law comes the knowledge of sin........the purpose of the law, as we have said, is not to give us rules we can keep. It is to make us see we are in desperate need of God's grace through Jesus Christ.

Cato

[Esquire]

Cato,

Your post is well stated and expresses my own understanding.

Mike

[Garry]

Cato, I agree with your last post competely.

Do believers who have accept Jesus ans their Lord and Savior still required to confess their sins? If yes, then doesn't this imply that believers need to know what laws still apply?

Thanks again for your thoughts.

[larry]

well said Cato.

Garry, here are a couple more vs. for you to meditate on:

Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days says the Lord. I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Also look intently into 2 Corinthians ch. 3

[Cato]

Thanks guys. After all these years of trying to learn, I am slowly getting it!

By the way, did you know there are actually two ways to get saved? One is to live a perfect life before the law; the other is to as Jesus to redeem you. So for those of us that have lived here for over about one moment, there is only really one way.

Is confession required for those of us under Grace? Confession is a vital part of repentance, which is necessary for true salvation. But once saved, confession is essential for a Spirit filled life. The Spirit of God will not work through a dirty vessel. If you or I insist on living a self centered life, even after salvation, we will live a very frustrated existence. When you get saved, God puts His Spirit in you, and gives you a new nature (new set of desires). Deep in your heart, you will know the need to live for God.

Confession is like getting the poison out of the wound. God already knows you sinned. Confession is necessary for US. It is a part of healing and going on.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful to forgive us, AND CLEANSE US OF ALL UNREIGHTEOUSNESS". (I John 1:9)

Cato

[Swanny]

Hi Garry, Not to be redundant, but personally speaking I think I have benefited from an overall understanding of historical 'happenings' in the flow of redemptive history (or what God is doing in Christ), before I concentrate on fleshing out an individual passage regarding law. From Gen. 3:15 on we see an unfolding of events that are working towards a culmination point which is Christ and his Crosswork (Gal.4:4...when in the fullness of time Chirst came). Based on enough evidence spoken by Christ, Paul and the writer of Hebrews, I think it's safe to view the Mosaic Covenant as having a beginning and an end, both in terms of mediatorship, laws, type of covenant, actual time period, participants and purpose (I'm sure I've left some out). Revelation is now completed in Christ and His Crosswork...He is the 'final' Word from God since He is God, we should not be expecting better and more exciting revelation from God (Heb.1:1). The 'fulfillment of the ages' has come on us, the church! I Cor.10:11, Eph 2. Thus, we have two time periods in which God has dealt somewhat differently with mankind. So how would this over-arching view facilitate in understanding a passage? I'll give it a whirl.

Take for instance, Gal.3:22-25, as has been quoted by someone above. More times than not, this passage is read from a personal standpoint as in "Before this faith came, we (ken swann) were held prisoners by the law....so the law was put in charge (of ken swann) to lead us (ken swann) to Christ that we (ken swann) might be justified"...etc.. People often think this verse is saying that the 10 commandments is what prepares a person's heart to come to faith in Christ in this era (church era). But it seems the preceeding context would steer the reading from a personal viewpoint to that of a historical time-periods of covenant 'cutting'. This can be seen throughout chapter 3, but is very noticeable in vs. 15 and following: Paul references that Abraham was given a promise through a covenant. Vs. 17 Paul references the Mosaic covenant via a shorthand expression 'the law'. Then in vs. 23 Paul references the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham via 'faith', or era of faith (Christ's new covenant).... Also factor in that throughout the letter Paul is constantly switching back and forth, sometimes including Gentiles in 'we' and sometimes excluding them as I believe in this case, so as to refer to Jews only (He does the same flip floppin in Romans 2 and 3). So, I think it would be better read from a historical time period perspective to best fit Paul's argument, like this:

vs. 23 "Before this [era of] faith came, we [Jews] were held prisoners by the law [era of Mosaic covenant], locked up until faith [the era of] should be revealed [in the crosswork of Christ]. 24 So the law [Mosaic era] was put in charge to lead us [Jews] to [the time period of] Christ that we [Jews] might be justified [and become a *real* offspring of Abraham] by faith [not law keeping as we wrongly believed]. 25 Now that faith [the era of] has come, we [Jews] are no longer [as we once were back in the Mosaic time period] under the supervision [or covenant] of the law.

Don't know if I make any sense at all.

Also noticed one of the responses you copied and pasted referenced the John 13:34 passage about the new commandment. It is interesting to note that the commandment to love is itself actually old....Lev. 19:18.

I thought Jon Zen's comments are worth quoting: "Christ's supreme act of love on the cross clearly becomes the starting point, the reference point, and the touchstone of all Christian obedience. Our love to one another is not just a reaction to the general love of God. It is a love specifically related to the act of God in giving Christ for us (I John 4:9-11). The multifaceted commandments which inform the Christian of his duties (John 14:15) are to be approached through the singular commandment to "love one another, as I loved you...It is this display of love on the cross that is "sufficient incentive" to restrain Christians from sin and to move them toward holy living." pg 13 of This Is My Beloved Son, Hear Him!

Another reason why the new era is better than the old! I've been in several churches that were content to send people to Christ for salvation and then send them back to Moses (via the 10 commandments) to get them sanctified. According to Scripture...it won't work, and never was intended to! Moses is no longer the 'big man on campus'...he was a faithful servant in the house for sure, but the builder of the house has come...Christ! Heb.3:4-6

Oh, and my best guess about the phrase 'the law' in Rom.3:19 is referencing the Mosaic Covenant law...Paul seems to consistantly use 'the law' in chptrs. 2 and 3 this way as he's weaving back and forth from Gentiles (without law) and Jews (under law...'the law') to prove they both are worthy of condemnation and their only hope is spiritual circumcision done by the Master Crafter.

[Cato]

Swanny,

Somewhere down the line, we need a thread on covenant. Not the issue of dispensation vs covenant, but more about what it meant to be in a covenant relationship. You know, David and Jonathan, etc. Sounds like you have some backround.

Ray Comfort has a teaching about the role of the law in salvation today. He contends that we fail to emphasize the law suficiently in our witnessing. Specifically, too many people are "won to Christ" by a witnessing effort that emphasizes how becomeing a Christian will make your life better. By no emphasis on our failure to keep God's perfect desire for us (law), there is no conviction of sin, and no genuine repentance. In other words, I'll try this Jesus thing to see if it really works. Without repentance, there is no real salvation. Yes?

[Garry]

I think we also need a discussion on what repentance is and how do we repent.

Ken, Cato and others participating in this discussion please answer the following question.

Do you accept God's defination of sin in Romans 3:4 - sin is the transgression of the law? Please answer yes or no.

What law(s) still apply to Gentiles today? Please be specific.

Thanks,
Garry

[Esquire]

Garry,

I do accept God's word to us in 1 John 3:4 (I think this is the passage you meant to link us to), but I feel like I may have a different take on what it means. I definitely do not think it means there is a complete list of sins somewhere that we must strive to avoid. Rather it seems to refer to the mark of the believer, which is the deliberate renunciation of the practice of sin. I'm not sure this passage is intended to give us a definition of what sin is, as much as it is intended to give us an idea of the place sin should have in our lives, once we have yielded to Divine Authority. In other words, we are not yielded to Divine Authority if we continue to practice the rejection of Divine Authority.

My best understanding of this passage is informed by a very rudimentary knowledge of the Greek word, combined with an overall understanding of scripture that is less complete than I wish it to be, and helped along, in part at least, by the explanation given in the Matthew Henry Commentary.

In short - the passage reads "Sin is lawlessness" in the Greek. (The word is Anomia). This word can mean several things, including the condition of being without the law, either from ignorance or transgression. It can also mean iniquity or wickedness. (Strongs Greek Dictionary). It can also mean contempt of Divine Law.

I think some of the Matthew Henry explanation is helpful so I will post the part that helps my understanding below: I made a few parts bold, because they stood out to me. Here_(Matthew_Henry Online) (http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC62003.HTM) is my source:

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________

I. From the nature of sin and the intrinsic evil of it. It is a contrariety to the divine law: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also (or even) the law (or, whosoever committeth sin even committeth enormity, or aberration from law, or from the law); for sin is the transgression of the law, or is lawlessness, v. 4 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=1Jo+3:4). Sin is the destitution or privation of correspondence and agreement with the divine law, that law which is the transcript of the divine nature and purity, which contains his will for the government of the world, which is suitable to the rational nature, and enacted for the good of the world, which shows man the way of felicity and peace, and conducts him to the author of his nature and of the law. The current commission of sin now is the rejection of the divine law, and this is the rejection of the divine authority, and consequently of God himself.
II. From the design and errand of the Lord Jesus in and to this world, which was to remove sin: And you know that he was manifested to take away our sins, and in him is no sin, v. 5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=1Jo+3:5). The Son of God appeared, and was known, in our nature; and he came to vindicate and exalt the divine law, and that by obedience to the precept, and by subjection and suffering under the penal sanction, under the curse of it. He came therefore to take away our sins, to take away the guilt of them by the sacrifice of himself, to take away the commission of them by implanting a new nature in us (for we are sanctified by virtue of his death), and to dissuade and save from it by his own example, and (or for) in him was no sin; or, he takes sin away, that he may conform us to himself, and in him is no sin. Those that expect communion with Christ above should study communion with him here in the utmost purity. And the Christian world should know and consider the great end of the Son of God's coming hither: it was to take away our sin: And you know (and this knowledge should be deep and effectual) that he was manifested to take away our sins.

III. From the opposition between sin and a real union with or adhesion to the Lord Christ: Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not, v. 6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=1Jo+3:6). To sin here is the same as to commit sin (v. 8, 9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=1Jo+3:8,9)), and to commit sin is to practise sin. He that abideth in Christ continues not in the practice of sin. As vital union with the Lord Jesus broke the power of sin in the heart and nature, so continuance therein prevents the regency and prevalence thereof in the life and conduct. Or the negative expression here is put for the positive: He sinneth not, that is, he is obedient, he keeps the commandments (in sincerity, and in the ordinary course of life) and does those things that are pleasing in his sight, as is said v. 22 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=1Jo+3:22). Those that abide in Christ abide in their covenant with him, and consequently watch against the sin that is contrary thereto. They abide in the potent light and knowledge of him; and therefore it may be concluded that he that sinneth (abideth in the predominant practice of sin) hath not seen him (hath not his mind impressed with a sound evangelical discerning of him), neither known him, hath no experimental acquaintance with him. Practical renunciation of sin is the great evidence of spiritual union with, continuance in, and saving knowledge of, the Lord Christ.

[Garry]

I found the following on the internet. I don't know what you guys and gals think about Herbert Armstrong but I found this to be pretty interesting. If the link doesn't work try cutting and pasting into your browser.

http://cgca.net/pabco/unpardon.htm (http://)

[Esquire]

Garry,

The link does not work for me. I think Herbert Armstrong is the guy who founded the Worldwide Church of God, right? He was into some pretty serious heresy - rejection of the doctrines of the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and salvation by grace through faith alone - for example.

I think since he died, the Worldwide Church of God made some moves to abandon their cult status, reject some or maybe all of thier heretical teachings, and embrace a more orthodox position.

I'm not sure where they stand right now. I personally would be cautious about anything Armstrong has to say, but certainly am happy to discuss it.

Mike

[Esquire]

OK, it works now, as a cut and paste. That is a very long article and makes some somewhat interesting points. He seems quite confused on a few things. I am not sure where he is coming from on his complicated explanation of salvation having two parts. He seems to be saying that only christians will live forever, and only if they have the Holy Spirit in them the minute they kick the bucket.

But we know from scripture that those who do not proceed into fellowship with God after this life will proceed into separation from God after this life. There are other things I noticed but don't have time to address at the moment. On a quick skim I would have to say that my earlier conclusion seems justified. Read Armstrong with caution. He founded a cult and his ideas have some deeply flawed theological underpinnings.

Mike

[Swanny]

Hi Cato, If I remember correctly the term 'covenant' is in the same realm as 'testament' or 'federal', which all imply two parties united in a sphere of commitment (normally by both parties, but in some cases only by one).

Marriage between a man and woman is a form of a covenant for sure, but some folks in the history of the church are what I call 'covenant happy'....they seem to have an overt tendancy to soley link God's actions with his creation (even the earth) in the form of covenants. I'm not that far in my understanding....yet. :) Since we're moving currently, I don't think I'd have time to participate in an entire thread devoted to it, but maybe later.

Funny you mentioned Ray Comfort...I've read some of his writings and think he uses the idea of law wrongly to just focus on the Ten Commandments, and his thoughts that they are meant to be used in our gospelizing people isn't really supported by NT evidence....even in the snapshots we have in the accountings of the Acts of the apostles. Though I'm sure even I know some folks who have been convicted by 'the Ten' and then have repented and believed on Christ...just saying that I don't see the New Covenant Scriptures setting forth the 'Ten' in that way.

Well, Garry...I looked again at the passage in Roms. 3:19,20 again concerning 'the law'...it may even have a broader application than what I first said of 'mosaic covenant', though I would definitely not see it so narrowly as to just include the 'Ten Commandments. On second guess, since Paul uses excerpts from Psalms, Isaiah and Ez. to prove that both Jew and Gentile are guilty, I could see his use of 'the law' to refer to the entire O.T. scriptures.

Concerning I jn. 4:3...I would have to say John the apostle isn't using the term 'law' in a way that is narrowly defining it as either the Mosaic covenant or even the Ten Commandments, but his point is, IMO, a general one of defining what sin is (a breechment of God's law code). I don't think his purpose is to tie the usage of the term back to what specific body of law has been broken as he's not arguing a different case like Paul in Rom. 2/3 and switching back and forth between Gentile and Jew. Though John in the entire letter uses the word 'commandment' (which is law codified) very frequently, and is obviously couching his argument squarely in the crosswork of Christ (look how many times he uses the word 'love'). The same Christ-centered ethic is seen in his letter just as they are seen in Paul's.

3:16 "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought [obligation...command] to lay down our lives [daily] for our brothers [based on what Christ has done for us]."

Obviously, I'm inserting my own uninspired-potentially fallible comments in the brackets. :)

He doesn't say "This is how we know what love is: The Ten Commandments are the essense of God's moral law, so keep them diligently. Review each decision and action you made before going to sleep at night in light of 'The Ten' to see if there was any violation, if so, confess your sin (which is transgressing the Law of Moses) and try harder to keep them."

Dunno if that makes sense et al.

[larry]

Swanny, concerning Ro. 3: 19,20, I think you just hit the 12 ring

[Garry]

From another web site.

Question:

After you are saved:
If the Holy Spirit convicts you of sin that is covered by the Law of Moses including the 10 Commandments then that would mean that these still apply to us, correct or not?
(We know that many of the 613 Laws of Moses don’t apply because our Messiah is our once for all sacrifice and we are not Jewish people living in Israel.)

Many Christians are taught different on this. Some say that we are under grace and no laws apply while others say that they stll apply. What's your opinion?

Answer:

This is the way I understand it.

WE ARE HEIRS ACCORDING TO GOD'S PROMISE, NOT HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE LAW. Gal. 3:24,25,29 says, "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But AFTER THAT FAITH IS COME, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A SCHOOLMASTER....And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:17,18 is clear. It says, "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise."

No one was ever saved by obeying the Law. Everyone sinned and fell short. However, the Law showed us what sin is. It still does. When we break the Law, we need to confess that sin to bring it under the blood of Christ. That is not because we need it to be saved, but because we need it to gain rewards, one of which is to be caught up to Heaven before the Tribulation.

By the Pre-Wrath Rapture, the Tribulation saints have learned this lessen. Rev. 7:14 says, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

We are saved by grace plus nothing, but we still know what sin is because of the Commandments. If we take the name of the Lord in vain, that is sin. If we believe in Christ, yet pile up sins, we are foolish virgins. Do you know what happens to foolish virgins? Mt. 25:10 shows that they are left behind at the first Rapture, the Pre-Trib Rapture. Why? for chastening. Believers are never to be chastened in Heaven, so they are chastened here on Earth. Rev. 3:19 says, "As many as I love, I rebuke and CHASTEN: be zealous therefore, and REPENT."

In the Preview of the Rapture in Rev. 1, verse 16 shows us that "out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword." Jesus does not have this sword at the Rapture for nothing. In his message to the church in Pergamos, he said, "REPENT, OR ELSE I will come unto thee quickly (he comes quickly at the Rapture (2:5 and 22:20), and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth" (Rev. 2:16).

Why is this sword necessary at the Rapture? In Luke 12:46, Jesus told us that "The lord of that servant (the foolish believer) will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder (lit., cut him off, i.e., with the sword of his mouth), and will appoint him his portion (the shortened Tribulation) with the UNBELIEVERS." Mt. 24:51 adds, "And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites (pretenders): there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

We need to be worthy to escape the chastening of the Tribulation. In Luke 21:34-36, Jesus said, "take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare (trap) shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be ACCOUNTED WORTHY TO ESCAPE all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man."

I John 1:9 says, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

[Esquire]

"From another website"

Garry,

Please cite your sources. You have linked to some things as interesting or food for thought that were written by the author of a cult. Given the nature of this forum, I would request that you cite to your sources so that readers will have a chance to evaluate, for themselves, the credibility of the author.

Thanks,

Mike

[Garry]

Good morning Mike,

I did an internet search on Mr. Armstrong and read both good and bad about him and his ministry. If the bad is true then I can see why one should be cautious of his teachings. In the end I think it comes down to testing what we hear and read against God's word.

Garry

[Esquire]

Garry,

Sorry for the slow replies. I am busy getting ready to go out of town. But I wanted to say that I agree. in the end, it does come down to testing what we read and hear against God's Word. I've enjoyed our interactions, I'll be off the site for a week or so, starting tomorrow.

Mike

[George Tsoukalas]

I think we are in agreement pretty much. I just have a question first. Who is Jesus? I believe that Jesus is the one true and only God. I believe that Jesus is God the Son-2nd Person of the Holy Trinity. I believe that He is fully God and fully man. Are we still in agreement? Hope so. :) Jawge

[Garry]

Who is Jesus? Is this a trick question? :)

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace.

So to answer your question, Jesus is the Word who became flesh on earth, he is the only begotten Son of God and now sits at the right hand of the Father. But most of all Jesus is my savior who took my place on the cross and died for my sins.

Thank you Jesus.

[Swanny]

Hey Garry, Was riding in the truck the other day and listening through Paul's letters to the Corinthians - was reminded of his thoughts in chptr.9 of the first letter. I think the best way I've heard it described is that there is a paradigm shift in law between what the people under Moses were held accountable to, vs. that which the people of Christ are held to...meaning it's not as simple as one body of law has replaced another. With the law of Moses, folks could pretty much just run down a checklist to see if there was any violation, but with the law of Christ the ethic is much more of motivation and attitude, so figuring out just how to apply the principles and commandments that are tied to the cross of Christ takes much more thought, contemplation and maturity.

In the previous chapter Paul gives instruction to not exercise our freedom in Christ so as to make a weaker brother in Christ to stumble (vs.9 of chptr.8). In the next chapter Paul gives his own example of how he is doing this very thing. He argues that he, as an apostle, has the right to benefit in many ways from preaching the Gospel of Christ, both financially and in any way that would see his physical needs being met. He cites several supporting examples from every day life (soldier/farmer both benefitting from what they do), one from a quote of Christ himself found in the Gospels, and also a couple from the Law of Moses (he does this with apostlic authority in defining how the Law was meant for use in the era of the new covenant of Christ..as he does in several other places like in 10:6,11). So he clearly establishes the rights of an apostle, BUT the ethic isn't complete yet...because he hasn't couched it in the context of the cross. He goes on, starting in vs.12 and following, that he hasn't capitalized on this right of his BECAUSE it very well could be a stumbling block to folks coming to Christ via the Gospel. Paul didn't want to be accused of making an occupation out of Christ and his Gospel. He went out of his way, in giving up his rights 'for the sake of the Gospel', to make sure that folks could see his motivation was completely pure (this is a repetitive theme in his letters to Corinth and Thessalonica).

So clearly, he says in I Cor.9:19-23 that his mindset is to become a slave to whatever ethnic group he's preaching to. Sometimes he acted like he was a Jew under the law, though he specifically says 'though I myself am not under law [of Moses['. To the Gentiles ('those not having the law') he acted like he was not under law, 'though I am not free from God's law, but am under Christ's law). "I do this for the sake of the Gospel, that I may share in its blessings." vs.23.

The ethic really isn't complete until chapter 11:1 when he gives a command.... "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ". Walla! As he wrote in Phil. 2 - Christ gave up his rights (in heaven...'though he was rich') and came down (humbled himself....'made himself of no reputation', 'he became poor'), 'so that you through his poverty might become rich'...'so that in him we might become the righteousness of God'. Excerpts from II Cor.5:20, 8:9. So we are to follow/mimic/immitate Paul's example of following Christ's example. We are to live like fools for the Gospel as in I Cor. 1.., or in other words, our choices in the way we live and relate to folks will seem like complete foolishness in the eyes of the 'wise' world (I think I remember Larry quoting this passage on another thread).

So why should anyone be bummed if the courts disallow the posting of 'The Ten'? How about posting just one....Gal. 6:2. :)

If anyone has any thoughts, I'm open to listen...always appreciate constructive criticism.

[George Tsoukalas]

Not really a trick question, Garry. I think it is the most important question in the universe. Is He the one true and only God? Jawge

[Garry]

George, if that is the most important question in the universe then the second most important question is have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior.

[George Tsoukalas]

Absolutely agree,Garry, but we must accept the real Jesus as our personal Saviour. God the Son, 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity; the One true and Only God. Thanks for putting up with me. George