Christians who are still under the law of sin

[Teofrastus]

It is strange that so many Christians have this fixation on sinful acts, especially bodily sin, considering that our sins are forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ. We are forgiven as long as we remain aware of our sinful nature, knowing that we are bound to go wrong now and then. Ruth Page explains that constant preoccupation with one's sins is equal to inverted egocentricity. It could produce psychological disaster. She criticizes the "traditional and still valid conception of sin as consuming preoccupation with oneself. The difficulty in the traditional view is that this egocentricity was called 'self-love', and the recommended alternative was self-denial or even self-hatred" (Ambiguity and the presence of God, 1985, p. 182). But one cannot love others unless one loves oneself, which is Erich Fromm's conclusion also. She continues:

Selfish people cannot love—either themselves or others. Loving oneself does not mean being lost in admiration at one's own qualities and goodness and thus oblivious to all else. That indeed would be as narcissistic as the constant search for one's sins. Instead of that, loving oneself means the recognition of the human being one is, with all one's potentialities, with the result that 'respect for one's own integrity and uniqueness, love for and understanding of one's own self cannot be separated from respect and love and understanding for another individual'.​

[...]​

But sin does not remove the relationship, for it is God’s nature always and everywhere to relate. We do not ‘clear the way’ to God, as it were, by our repentance and confession, but in our repentance we find his forgiveness already there, waiting for us. When we open ourselves to any experience we find God already there, prevenient in it, and this is true of remorse and admission of failure also. We still have to live with the consequence of our actions, but there is no need for an accumulation of guilt to corrode our capacity to respond, since we are forgiven. (ibid., pp. 183-86)​

It is remarkable that the Christian message is so hard to understand. It has gone 2,000 years, and people still don't get it. People are still under the law of sin.

 

[HTacianas]

It is strange that so many Christians have this fixation on sinful acts, especially bodily sin, considering that our sins are forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ. We are forgiven as long as we remain aware of our sinful nature, knowing that we are bound to go wrong now and then. Ruth Page explains that constant preoccupation with one's sins is equal to inverted egocentricity. It could produce psychological disaster. She criticizes the "traditional and still valid conception of sin as consuming preoccupation with oneself. The difficulty in the traditional view is that this egocentricity was called 'self-love', and the recommended alternative was self-denial or even self-hatred" (Ambiguity and the presence of God, 1985, p. 182). But one cannot love others unless one loves oneself, which is Erich Fromm's conclusion also. She continues:

​

Selfish people cannot love—either themselves or others. Loving oneself does not mean being lost in admiration at one's own qualities and goodness and thus oblivious to all else. That indeed would be as narcissistic as the constant search for one's sins. Instead of that, loving oneself means the recognition of the human being one is, with all one's potentialities, with the result that 'respect for one's own integrity and uniqueness, love for and understanding of one's own self cannot be separated from respect and love and understanding for another individual'.​

​

[...]​

​

But sin does not remove the relationship, for it is God’s nature always and everywhere to relate. We do not ‘clear the way’ to God, as it were, by our repentance and confession, but in our repentance we find his forgiveness already there, waiting for us. When we open ourselves to any experience we find God already there, prevenient in it, and this is true of remorse and admission of failure also. We still have to live with the consequence of our actions, but there is no need for an accumulation of guilt to corrode our capacity to respond, since we are forgiven. (ibid., pp. 183-86)​

It is remarkable that the Christian message is so hard to understand. It has gone 2,000 years, and people still don't get it. People are still under the law of sin.

Could it be that people have always gotten it but then someone else came along 2000 years later and made it into something else? Or maybe when Paul said a person ought examine himself prior to the Eucharist he wasn't as smart as Ruth Page.

 

[BobRyan]

It is strange that so many Christians have this fixation on sinful acts, especially bodily sin, considering that our sins are forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ. We are forgiven as long as we remain aware of our sinful nature, knowing that we are bound to go wrong now and then. Ruth Page explains that constant preoccupation with one's sins is equal to inverted egocentricity. It could produce psychological disaster. She criticizes the "traditional and still valid conception of sin as consuming preoccupation with oneself. The difficulty in the traditional view is that this egocentricity was called 'self-love', and the recommended alternative was self-denial or even self-hatred" (Ambiguity and the presence of God, 1985, p. 182). But one cannot love others unless one loves oneself, which is Erich Fromm's conclusion also. She continues:

​

Selfish people cannot love—either themselves or others. Loving oneself does not mean being lost in admiration at one's own qualities and goodness and thus oblivious to all else. That indeed would be as narcissistic as the constant search for one's sins. Instead of that, loving oneself means the recognition of the human being one is, with all one's potentialities, with the result that 'respect for one's own integrity and uniqueness, love for and understanding of one's own self cannot be separated from respect and love and understanding for another individual'.​

​

[...]​

​

But sin does not remove the relationship, for it is God’s nature always and everywhere to relate. We do not ‘clear the way’ to God, as it were, by our repentance and confession, but in our repentance we find his forgiveness already there, waiting for us. When we open ourselves to any experience we find God already there, prevenient in it, and this is true of remorse and admission of failure also. We still have to live with the consequence of our actions, but there is no need for an accumulation of guilt to corrode our capacity to respond, since we are forgiven. (ibid., pp. 183-86)​

It is remarkable that the Christian message is so hard to understand. It has gone 2,000 years, and people still don't get it. People are still under the law of sin.

Matt 7:

13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it.​

15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.​

​

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’​

Rom 2:13

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.​

​

Rom 6:

15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under the Law but under grace? Far from it! 16 Do you not know that the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of that same one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were entrusted, 18 and after being freed from sin, you became slaves to righteousness.​

 

[Soyeong]

It is strange that so many Christians have this fixation on sinful acts, especially bodily sin, considering that our sins are forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ. We are forgiven as long as we remain aware of our sinful nature, knowing that we are bound to go wrong now and then. Ruth Page explains that constant preoccupation with one's sins is equal to inverted egocentricity. It could produce psychological disaster. She criticizes the "traditional and still valid conception of sin as consuming preoccupation with oneself. The difficulty in the traditional view is that this egocentricity was called 'self-love', and the recommended alternative was self-denial or even self-hatred" (Ambiguity and the presence of God, 1985, p. 182). But one cannot love others unless one loves oneself, which is Erich Fromm's conclusion also. She continues:

​

Selfish people cannot love—either themselves or others. Loving oneself does not mean being lost in admiration at one's own qualities and goodness and thus oblivious to all else. That indeed would be as narcissistic as the constant search for one's sins. Instead of that, loving oneself means the recognition of the human being one is, with all one's potentialities, with the result that 'respect for one's own integrity and uniqueness, love for and understanding of one's own self cannot be separated from respect and love and understanding for another individual'.​

​

[...]​

​

But sin does not remove the relationship, for it is God’s nature always and everywhere to relate. We do not ‘clear the way’ to God, as it were, by our repentance and confession, but in our repentance we find his forgiveness already there, waiting for us. When we open ourselves to any experience we find God already there, prevenient in it, and this is true of remorse and admission of failure also. We still have to live with the consequence of our actions, but there is no need for an accumulation of guilt to corrode our capacity to respond, since we are forgiven. (ibid., pp. 183-86)​

C.S Lewis said that humility is not thinking less of yourself, but is thinking of yourself less. I've also heart is said that humility is taking up the right amount of space, so there is an appropriate amount of love that we should have for ourselves that is a balance between being egocentric and self-hatred. If someone has accomplished great things, then they should recognize them without diminishing or bragging about them. In order to know how to correctly obey the command to love our neighbors as ourselves we need to know how we should love ourselves, and the answer is that we should love ourselves as God loves us, which is why Jesus said that we should love one another as he loves us. So we should recognize that God has an incredible amount of love for ourselves while taking up the right amount of space by recognizing that God also has an incredible amount of love for our neighbor.

It is remarkable that the Christian message is so hard to understand. It has gone 2,000 years, and people still don't get it. People are still under the law of sin.

I don't see anything in the Bible that says that a requirement for being forgiven is remaining aware of our sinful nature and knowing that we are bound to go wrong now and again. I agree that our focus should be on acting in accordance with God's nature than on our sin. Paul described the law of sin as something that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do.

 

[Dosblade]

It is strange that so many Christians have this fixation on sinful acts, especially bodily sin, considering that our sins are forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ. We are forgiven as long as we remain aware of our sinful nature, knowing that we are bound to go wrong now and then. Ruth Page explains that constant preoccupation with one's sins is equal to inverted egocentricity. It could produce psychological disaster. She criticizes the "traditional and still valid conception of sin as consuming preoccupation with oneself. The difficulty in the traditional view is that this egocentricity was called 'self-love', and the recommended alternative was self-denial or even self-hatred" (Ambiguity and the presence of God, 1985, p. 182). But one cannot love others unless one loves oneself, which is Erich Fromm's conclusion also. She continues:

​

Selfish people cannot love—either themselves or others. Loving oneself does not mean being lost in admiration at one's own qualities and goodness and thus oblivious to all else. That indeed would be as narcissistic as the constant search for one's sins. Instead of that, loving oneself means the recognition of the human being one is, with all one's potentialities, with the result that 'respect for one's own integrity and uniqueness, love for and understanding of one's own self cannot be separated from respect and love and understanding for another individual'.​

​

[...]​

​

But sin does not remove the relationship, for it is God’s nature always and everywhere to relate. We do not ‘clear the way’ to God, as it were, by our repentance and confession, but in our repentance we find his forgiveness already there, waiting for us. When we open ourselves to any experience we find God already there, prevenient in it, and this is true of remorse and admission of failure also. We still have to live with the consequence of our actions, but there is no need for an accumulation of guilt to corrode our capacity to respond, since we are forgiven. (ibid., pp. 183-86)​

It is remarkable that the Christian message is so hard to understand. It has gone 2,000 years, and people still don't get it. People are still under the law of sin.

Maybe its not them but the one that is talking about it focusing on it? I believe its so wonderful how many believers are focused on Jesus Christ and what He finished on the Cross...that number no one can count

 

[Teofrastus]

[...] I don't see anything in the Bible that says that a requirement for being forgiven is remaining aware of our sinful nature and knowing that we are bound to go wrong now and again. I agree that our focus should be on acting in accordance with God's nature than on our sin. Paul described the law of sin as something that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do.

T. Whitelaw says that "the Bible devotes its efforts to imparting to mankind reliable knowledge about the nature and universality, the origin and culpability, but also and especially about the removableness of sin..." (The biblical conception of sin).

 

[The Liturgist]

Could it be that people have always gotten it but then someone else came along 2000 years later and made it into something else? Or maybe when Paul said a person ought examine himself prior to the Eucharist he wasn't as smart as Ruth Page.

Surely the former is the case, for the latter is of course preposterous, as you of course know, but unfortunately I find that this is a point that we frequently must reiterate in the face of the revisionist prophets of some of the Radical Reformation and Restorationist churches (the distinction between Protestantism and Restoraitionism is that most of the Restorationists claim to be reinstituting the practices of the Early Church, which is of course a problematic statement given the wide variation between the doctrine and praxis of, for example, the Quakers and the Adventists, and also between those groups and what we know based on archeological and historical evidence concerning the liturgical worship of the early church, which is quite a lot, actually (for instance, the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, also known as the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril by the Copts, for St. Cyril of Alexandria ordered its translation into Coptic, is attested to by the second century Strasbourg Papyrus, making it the oldest attested liturgical text still in use. Indeed a version of it is also included in the oldest intact liturgical service book, the Euchologion compiled by St. Serapion of Thmuis in the 4th century, an Egyptian bishop in the Patriarchate of Alexandria loyal to St. Athanasius the Pillar of Orthodoxy.

 

[The Liturgist]

Matt 7:

13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it.​

15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.​

​

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’​

Rom 2:13

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.​

​

Rom 6:

15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under the Law but under grace? Far from it! 16 Do you not know that the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of that same one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were entrusted, 18 and after being freed from sin, you became slaves to righteousness.​

You are selectively quoting St. Paul and ignoring critical and relevant passages in Galatians, Romans and elsewhere which make it clear we are no longer under the law. Indeed the legalistic stance you are trying to imply through selective quoting is contradicted by Galatians ch. 3 and ch. 4 in its entirety, although I don’t expect you will concede this point, but we can of course agree to disagree as always, indeed I still do wish we might have less controversy and more concord, with a focus on ecumenical reconciliation rather than polemics, since it is evident that the Roman Catholic Church is not working to prohibit worship on Saturday (indeed masses on Saturday evening can now be attended instead of masses on Sunday for the benefit of those who have to work on Sunday) and since there is so much common ground between the Adventists and the traditional liturgical churches on issues such as pro-life advocacy and resisting the encroachment of contemporary secular values on human sexuality. Indeed most of what I have historically written in Denomination Specific Theology has consisted of criticism of the embrace of Queer Theology, the LGBTQ+ movement, and other sexual and moral perversions by those who currently have control over the mainline Protestant churches in which I grew up, much to my extreme dismay.

 

[Teofrastus]

Could it be that people have always gotten it but then someone else came along 2000 years later and made it into something else? Or maybe when Paul said a person ought examine himself prior to the Eucharist he wasn't as smart as Ruth Page.

Evidently, Ruth Page does not deny repentance and confession: "...but in our repentance we find his forgiveness already there, waiting for us".

It's like Luther sees it. The law is like a dark cloud always hanging over our heads; but the Gospel is the antidote for this demonic power. People always fall back to the law of sin, but Christ is always victorious in the battle that goes on in the soul of the Christian. Today, people carry "climate guilt" and all kinds of irrational guilt. They think they are sinners because they are white, or male, or for belonging to the developed world. They are very anxious to follow the "law" in whatever form. It could be Communist Law, Marxist Law, Woke Law, United Nations Law, etc. They unthinkingly latch on to any ideological regulations, as if they had never heard of the Gospel. Paul says in Galatians:

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? (Gal. 4:8-9)​

​

Today we face the Galatian problem all over again! Although such ideologies are by nature not gods, people willingly obey their miserable principles.

 

[biblelesson]

Ruth Page explains

Who is Ruth page? A lot of what you said is not scriptural.

C.S Lewis said

Who is .S. Lewis? What about the Holy Spirit teaching us?

T. Whitelaw says

Who is T. Whitelaw? Can you see the problem?

It is remarkable that the Christian message is so hard to understand. It has gone 2,000 years, and people still don't get it. People are still under the law of sin.

Very true statement. But what’s the problem? A lack of biblical understanding and bad teachers.

What some people fail to understand about the gospel is that it is a mystery, Colossians 1:26 KJV, “Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:”

It is not manifested to everyone, it’s revealed only to those who are His saints, God’s elect. That’s a problem for some who say they are Christians, because if the Spirit of Christ is not in them, they do not belong to Christ, Romans 8:9 KJV.

People don’t really understand that the gospel is alive! It works in the believer to manifestation and transformation of those thing written. Another name for the gospel is “in the faith,” 1 Peter 5:9 KJV. That’s because there is no works involved whatsoever in the gospel. We are transformed through faith only.

For example, there is nothing we can do to put on the new man, and “walk in newness of life” as commanded. But people take those verse and think we must put forth the effort to do some action on our own (works) to be able to walk in newness of life, not really processing the fact that the scripture says “we have been crucified, we died with Christ (our sinful nature) on the cross. This is the confusion. We are not being told to put on the new man ourselves. We are being told that the new man that already exist in Christ, we must put on that which already exist. The new man is from God. The only way we can receive what already exist in Christ is to believe.

Without being taught by the Holy Spirit, people will go another 2000 years (so to speak) and never get it, as the gospel is hard to understand, 2 Peter 3:16 KJV, “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

The problem? Listening to man and not the Holy Spirit. Man can plant, and man can water, but God provides the increase, 1 Corinthians 3:6 KJV, “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.”

By His Spirit!

 

[Teofrastus]

[...]

Jacob M. Myers (Grace and torah, 1975) says:

Salvation is a gift, God's grace to mankind. No conditions were attached to God's act. Only faith was necessary to appropriate it. But then Paul goes on to point out how saved men ought to conduct themselves with reference to the community and the world. Such conduct of the believer demonstrated that he was really in Christ, a slave of his and no longer his own. It would be a life of thanksgiving for God's gracious gift of both salvation and direction. (p. 85)​

We are under no obligation to follow any law. But we follow our heart, which largely coincides with the Ten Commandments, for the reason that we are slaves of Christ. We honour Him this way. We are stand-up citizens only because it gives Christianity a better rap. This is the Pauline message. This is the "Law of Christ".

Because we are justified in Christ, it has no consequences for our salvation at all, should we over-step the limits. On the other hand, it has social consequences. But to become an outcast is to become Christlike—so it's an improvement! After all, if we take pride in being righteous before other men, then we are on the slippery slope to damnation.

 

[biblelesson]

We are under no obligation to follow any law. But we follow our heart, which largely coincides with the Ten Commandments, for the reason that we are slaves of Christ. We honour Him this way. We are stand-up citizens only because it gives Christianity a better rap. This is the Pauline message. This is the "Law of Christ".

This is so lovely and brings to mind the scripture, “And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!”, Romans 10:15 KJV.

We are given new hearts to accomplish walking as slaves to Christ. In Christ, God removed the heart of man, (we are crucified with Christ), and gives him a new heart, and puts His spirit in him (we are raised with Christ), Ezekiel 36:26-27 KJV. This is what enables the believer to walk as slaves to Christ. It is the dividing of the soul (carnal man), and spirit (new man), Hebrews 4:12 KJV.

Seeing this, believing this, and experiencing this (power of the Spirit) is the joy given to us enabling praise and thanksgiving - to have been blessed with God’s gift of grace.

Because we are justified in Christ, it has no consequences for our salvation at all, should we over-step the limits. On the other hand, it has social consequences. But to become an outcast is to become Christlike—so it's an improvement! After all, if we take pride in being righteous before other men, then we are on the slippery slope to damnation.

Yes, yes, yes! This is part of our suffering when we over-step, and suffer consequences. We go through this until we grow up in Christ, 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 KJV.

We start off as children drinking the milk of the gospel, but we are to grow to eating the meat of the gospel, 1 Corinthians 3:2 KJV. Our overstepping should becomes less and less with the understanding, as you said, we are justified, and there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus, totally removing guilt.

God bless!

 

[Teofrastus]

[...]

That's why the sayings of Jesus often have a double meaning. It's as if he talks to two categories of people in the same sentence. On the other hand, Paul, in the Letter to the Galatians, was overly optimistic. He thought that all the congregants could grasp the radical message of the Gospel. He even thought that the Holy Spirit would guide the assembly, and thus they required no priest. Jesus knew better, of course. Later, in Romans, we find Paul preaching the law again, as he had come to realize that not all people have reached maturity in the spirit. This explains the twofoldness of the message. We can't get rid of the law, as people will always go into reverse, revert to the law of sin and death. It's our human nature, impaired by original sin. But the Gospel liberates us again and again from the law. The liberation of grace is not a one-time occurrence. That's how Luther sees it.

 

[HTacianas]

Evidently, Ruth Page does not deny repentance and confession: "...but in our repentance we find his forgiveness already there, waiting for us".

It's like Luther sees it. The law is like a dark cloud always hanging over our heads; but the Gospel is the antidote for this demonic power. People always fall back to the law of sin, but Christ is always victorious in the battle that goes on in the soul of the Christian. Today, people carry "climate guilt" and all kinds of irrational guilt. They think they are sinners because they are white, or male, or for belonging to the developed world. They are very anxious to follow the "law" in whatever form. It could be Communist Law, Marxist Law, Woke Law, United Nations Law, etc. They unthinkingly latch on to any ideological regulations, as if they had never heard of the Gospel. Paul says in Galatians:

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? (Gal. 4:8-9)​

​

Today we face the Galatian problem all over again! Although such ideologies are by nature not gods, people willingly obey their miserable principles.

The principles Paul was speaking of were the requirements of the Jewish law of righteousness, also referred to as "works of the law". For example, when Jesus was born Mary went to the temple with two turtle doves, the sacrifice required for her purification after giving birth. Notice that Christianity has never required any sacrifice for any sort of purification because "we are not under law, but under grace", see Romans 6:14. But the writer also says "shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid", Romans 6:15. For Ruth Page to imply that we need not examine ourselves is nothing more than what a lot of televangelists have to say nowadays, "God loves you just the way you are you don't need to change a thing", and leads to antinomianism. That is the message of Ruth Page.

 

[biblelesson]

On the other hand, Paul, in the Letter to the Galatians, was overly optimistic. He thought that all the congregants could grasp the radical message of the Gospel. He even thought that the Holy Spirit would guide the assembly, and thus they required no priest. Jesus knew better, of course.

Paul was chosen by Christ to preach the gospel to the gentiles, and ultimately to the Jews.

Romans 1:16 KJV, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

1 Timothy 2:7 KJV, Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not; a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”

2 Timothy 1:11 KJV, “Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.”

Galatians 1:1 KJV, “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead”

Paul was not confused nor overly optimistic, as he is the father of the gospel, 1 Corinthians 4:15 KJV, it was his duty as Christ servant to warn the Galatians about the Jews who were bringing the law of works into the mix. Paul told them they were being bewitched. It was Paul who was the teacher of the Galatians, where they had already experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, Galatians 3:2 KJV. However Paul was stern in asking them how did they receive the Spirit, by the law or the hearing of faith. He was letting them know that they in no way received the Spirit by the law, and that they were foolish to believe the Jews who wanted them to work the law of Moses, Galatians 3:3 KJV.

The Galatians would not have required a priest, and at that time the priesthood was over. The Jews just didn’t want to let go of the law. Paul was not confused, being taught by Christ, he knew the Leviticus Priesthood ended when Jesus died on the cross; when the vail ripped no priest could perform their priestly duty because God was no longer behind the vail. So, what the Jews were doing at that time was in vein, Galatians 3:4 KJV. They just simply did not want to accept the Gospel, and plotted to kill Paul for preaching the gospel of Christ, Act 23:12-15 KJV.

Later, in Romans, we find Paul preaching the law again, as he had come to realize that not all people have reached maturity in the spirit.

Paul was ticked with the Galatians and the Jews for bewitching them, so I can’t see how he would have gone back to teach the law anywhere in the gospel of Christ.

We can't get rid of the law, as people will always go into reverse, revert to the law of sin and death. It's our human nature, impaired by original sin.

Jesus got rid of the law for us. He nailed it to His cross at his death and took away its requirements, Colossians 2:14 KJV.

People revert to the law of sin and death for only one reason. They don’t understand the teachings of the gospel. When we can believe God, that we are no longer under law, the Holy Spirit starts the transformation process to free us from the law. But without the proper understanding, we are left with constantly wrestling with the flesh as spoken of in Romans 7.

We will not grow without faith. It’s faith first to receive what Christ has already done for us, which requires patience as we digest the gospel. “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God…”, Romans 8:19-21 KJV.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is strange that so many Christians have this fixation on sinful acts, especially bodily sin, considering that our sins are forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ. We are forgiven as long as we remain aware of our sinful nature, knowing that we are bound to go wrong now and then. Ruth Page explains that constant preoccupation with one's sins is equal to inverted egocentricity. It could produce psychological disaster. She criticizes the "traditional and still valid conception of sin as consuming preoccupation with oneself. The difficulty in the traditional view is that this egocentricity was called 'self-love', and the recommended alternative was self-denial or even self-hatred" (Ambiguity and the presence of God, 1985, p. 182). But one cannot love others unless one loves oneself, which is Erich Fromm's conclusion also. She continues:

​

Selfish people cannot love—either themselves or others. Loving oneself does not mean being lost in admiration at one's own qualities and goodness and thus oblivious to all else. That indeed would be as narcissistic as the constant search for one's sins. Instead of that, loving oneself means the recognition of the human being one is, with all one's potentialities, with the result that 'respect for one's own integrity and uniqueness, love for and understanding of one's own self cannot be separated from respect and love and understanding for another individual'.​

​

[...]​

​

But sin does not remove the relationship, for it is God’s nature always and everywhere to relate. We do not ‘clear the way’ to God, as it were, by our repentance and confession, but in our repentance we find his forgiveness already there, waiting for us. When we open ourselves to any experience we find God already there, prevenient in it, and this is true of remorse and admission of failure also. We still have to live with the consequence of our actions, but there is no need for an accumulation of guilt to corrode our capacity to respond, since we are forgiven. (ibid., pp. 183-86)​

It is remarkable that the Christian message is so hard to understand. It has gone 2,000 years, and people still don't get it. People are still under the law of sin.

Yes, I agree with Luther's critique of medieval sin management, also. It's something that is lost on alot of American Christians, though, where it's been largely lost, having never really encountered the Gospel, as Luther understood it, in the first place.

 

[FireDragon76]

The principles Paul was speaking of were the requirements of the Jewish law of righteousness, also referred to as "works of the law". For example, when Jesus was born Mary went to the temple with two turtle doves, the sacrifice required for her purification after giving birth. Notice that Christianity has never required any sacrifice for any sort of purification because "we are not under law, but under grace", see Romans 6:14. But the writer also says "shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid", Romans 6:15. For Ruth Page to imply that we need not examine ourselves is nothing more than what a lot of televangelists have to say nowadays, "God loves you just the way you are you don't need to change a thing", and leads to antinomianism. That is the message of Ruth Page.

I think there is a Shin Buddhist saying of Shinran that is consonant with something in Lutheranism, in response to what you object to: "Just because we have the antidote, doesn't mean we have to drink the poison" (Shin Buddhism had its own "antinomian" controversy). But saying that the antidote won't work if we drink poison is just as grave an error, it's a denial of the sufficiency and promise of grace.

 

[Teofrastus]

The principles Paul was speaking of were the requirements of the Jewish law of righteousness, also referred to as "works of the law". For example, when Jesus was born Mary went to the temple with two turtle doves, the sacrifice required for her purification after giving birth. Notice that Christianity has never required any sacrifice for any sort of purification because "we are not under law, but under grace", see Romans 6:14. But the writer also says "shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid", Romans 6:15. For Ruth Page to imply that we need not examine ourselves is nothing more than what a lot of televangelists have to say nowadays, "God loves you just the way you are you don't need to change a thing", and leads to antinomianism. That is the message of Ruth Page.

No, it isn't the message of Ruth Page. Her message is that we ought to grow up. The point is that the law, i.e., the Ten Commandments and the mores of society, are good for children to learn. It's good for adults who, due to intellectual weakness, cannot become morally mature persons. But for those with a moral function, who can think for themselves, the law is not needful anymore. That's why Paul urges us to

become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. (Ephes. 4:13-15)​

Or else people will be "blown here and there by every wind of teaching". The humanist Erasmus (1466-1536) taught that humanity is indeed capable of following the heavenly rules to achieve perfection in this life. Luther defeated him so thoroughly that he was forgotten by the time of his death. Augustine, in his time, defeated Pelagius, who taught that humanity has free will to achieve perfection. But history has proven this wrong. The anti-Christian idea that we can build a perfect society and achieve human perfection is the root of the horrible evils in modernity.

Antinomianism implies the rejection of the very notion of obedience as legalistic. But the person who has "become mature", and no longer needs to be guided by law, is truly obedient. He has acquired the "mind of Christ". As a "slave of Christ" he knows by himself, in his own heart. Obviously, he will have a greater passion for the truth than those who merely follow the rules.

The Antichrist imitates Christianity in legalistic terms, creating a false copy. In this way he works to undermine the Church and Western civilization. The Antichrist is a "parasitic hypostasis" (parhupostasis; Proclus), as the medievel theologians saw it. He culls life force from Christianity, utilizing the Christian soul-formation, established throughout the centuries, in order to mislead them. He uses terms like 'compassion' and 'human rights', etc. But it's evident that such talk is void of love and all about following the rules. This is how we can know that we are dealing with the Antichrist.

 

[Diamond7]

our sins are forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ.

Forgiven or not, we still suffer the consequences. We reap what we sow. The seeds we plant, grow.