I am not under the law, am dead to the law, and am delivered from the law...(a question)

[giftofGod2]

Ephesians 2:15, Havng abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.

Colossians 2:13-14, And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses: Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

Romans 6:14, For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 7:4, Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Galatians 2:19, For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

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

--------------

Seeing these scriptures, it is clear that there is no more any application of the law to our lives. Is this true?

1 John 3:4 tells us that sin is the transgression of the law, and in Romans 6:15 we are exhorted, What then? shall we sin (i.e. transgress the law), because we are not under the law but under grace?

And also Romans 8:7 says, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

This would indicate to me, that the spiritual mind is at peace with God because it is subject to the law of God, and cannot be otherwise.

So I would venture to say that what all this means is that Christ has forgiven us of past, present, and future sins by abolishing the law's ability to condemn us: sin is not imputed to us because we are not under the law, are dead to the law, and are delivered from the law; even as it is written, Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Romans 4:15, and For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Romans 5:13,

And, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

So we are forgiven and the law no longer has dominion over us (Romans 7:1) as we have been made dead indeed unto sin (Romans 6:7, Romans 6:11, Romans 8:10).

And yet, if we are spiritually minded, then our minds are subject to the law of God.

Which brings up a question. First, a couple of scriptures, in two sections:

I.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:18

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. 1 Peter 2:21-22

II.
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile a man...Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth into the draught, purging all meats? Mark 7:15,19.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron: Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 1 Timothy 4:1-6.

So, in section I, we find Jesus breaking the sabbath according to the inspired opinion of the gospel writer, and also it is true that Jesus never committed any sins: therefore Jesus did not sin in breaking the sabbath, and it is also not a sin for us if we do the same.

And in section II, Jesus effectively declares all foods clean, abolishing the dietary laws of the Old Testament concerning clean and unclean animals.

So then, the question that I have is concernig Romans 8:7 (I will quote it again here): Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

What is the law of God that the carnal mind is not subject to? Was Jesus being carnally minded in not being subject to the sabbath law of the ten commandments? (see 2 Corinthians 5:21 for the answer) And are we carnally minded if we do not subject ourselves to dietary laws concerning clean and unclean animals? Remember that it says in 1 Timothy 4:4 that every creature is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

The answer is simple but hard to find, if you are not a careful student of scripture. In Hebrews 7:12,18-19 we find the following words:

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law:...For there is verily a disanulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigth unto God.

So, again looking at Romans 8:7, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The question is, what is the law of God that we are subject to in our minds if we are spiritually minded? On the one hand, I don't want to change the meaning of the law of God in that verse, but on the other hand, I don't believe that the whole of scripture bears out that when it says the law of God here, it can possibly be referring to the law of Moses.

So, going back to the context of some of the other verse we have mentioned:

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Romans 7:4.

Is it possibe that the law of God, spoken of in Romans 8:7, could be referring to our subjection to the Lordship of the one to whom we have been married to instead of the law? Remember that in Galatians Paul relates to us that being under the law is slavery, and yet in James we are told that there is a law of liberty; perhaps this law of liberty is set forth in the fact that we as bona fide believers are willing servants of our Lord Jesus Christ (Psalm 110:3), no longer being in bondage to the law (Galatians 4:21-31 -- Galatians 5:1-4).

In Romans 8:2 it is written, For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

And in Romans 3:27 we find the words, Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Righteousness in the New Testament is not according to the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ (see also 1 Corinthians 15:1-4):

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13.

...and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Philippians 3:9.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Romans 4:3.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 4:5.

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. Romans 4:9.

A few last things, and then we will finish:

The fact that we are no longer under the Old Testament law means that we are in a heap of trouble, because now we no longer have an understanding of sin, unless something in the New Testament can define it for us. I think that Paul does this perfectly in Romans 8:3:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak though the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fufilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

In the righteousness of faith, sin is defined as walking according to the flesh. If we walk after the Spirit, and not after the flesh, the righteousness of the New Testament requirement will be fulfilled in us; as I most certainly believe that in Romans 8:4, when Paul refers to the righteousness of the law, he is also here referring to the New Testament requirement of being under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, because For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. The New Testament law being the requirement to walk by faith and also to be subject to the moral teachings of the New Testament in our spiritual minds, while none of these laws have dominion over us in that we, being in Christ, are no longer condemned and cannot be condemned, the condition for this freedom is that we be born again and thus be spiritually minded. And those who are spiritually minded are subject to the Lordship of Jesus Christ within their minds. Until we come to that place of relationship with Jesus Christ, wherein we hear from Him on a personal level, we must be subject to the law of God: since this law has been changed (Hebrews 7:12), let us search the New Testament to find what it has been changed to; for if you do so, you will see that the moral requirement is greater than in that of the Old Testament, the righteousness required is a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20); and yet, because we are given the power of the Holy Spirit to complete the new requirement we find that his yoke is easy and his burden is light. Matthew 11:30.

 

[Soyeong]

Paul spoke about a number of different types of laws, such as the law of God (Romans 3:31, 7:22-25, 8:7), the law of sin (Romans 7:23-25), the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), the law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2), the law of faith (Romans 3:27), the law of righteousness (Romans 9:31), the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21), and works of law (Galatians 3:10), so the issue becomes about correctly identifying which law Paul was talking about. As we are doing this, we should keep in mind that we must obey God rather than man and the way that God has instructed us to tell whether someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him is that they taught His people against obeying His law (Deuteronomy 13:4-6). In other words, if you remain convinced that Paul was teaching anyone against obeying God's law (contrary to 2 Peter 3:15-17), then you should consider him to be a false prophet and obey God instead. However, I think when we rightly divide which law is being talked about, then we will see that it was only man's laws that Paul spoke against obeying.

For example, does it make sense to you to say that we are new creations in Messiah to do good works in Ephesians 2:10 and then a few verses later in Ephesians 2:15 say that Messiah did away with his instructions for how to do good works? Paul said that all OT Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness, and equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16), so was Paul saying that Messiah did away with OT Scripture and that it was no longer profitable for those things? Is it reasonable to consider whether there was some other set of laws that Ephesians 2:15 could be referring to that was causing enmity, such as the man made laws mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles?

In regard to Colossians 2:13-14, what was nailed on crosses was the violations of the law that the person being crucified had committed or the charges against them (Mark 15:26), not the law itself, so they didn't have to legislate new laws every time someone was crucified. This fits perfectly with the concept of our violations of God's law or our sins being nailed to Messiah's cross and with him dying for our sin in our place, but does not fit at all with Messiah giving himself to redeem us from a set of holy, righteous, and good laws. In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Messiah gave himself to redeem us from the law, but to redeem us from lawlessness.

In Romans 6:14, the law that he was saying we weren't under is the one where sin had dominion over us, so he was saying that we are not under the law of sin, and by extension the law of sin and death (Romans 6:8-14). In Romans 7:12-23, Paul said that God's law was holy, righteous, and good, that it was the good that he sought to do and delighted in doing, but contrasted that with a law of sin and death that was working within him to cause him to no to do the good that he wanted to do, so the law of sin and death is the opposite of God's law.

In Romans 7:1-4, is there any point where the woman was set free from having to obey any of the laws? Could she now freely commit murder or adultery or transgress any other law? No, the status of being dead to the law does not refer to being free from obeying the law or being free to sin, but rather it refers to being free from the penalty of the law, just as the woman was set free from what would penalize her if she were to live with another man while her husband was still alive. This was the point that Paul was concluding from in Romans 8:1 when he said that there is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Messiah. Paul specified in Romans 7:6 that we were delivered from what held us captive, and it is sin in violation of the law that holds us captive, not instructions for how to do what is holy, righteous, and good in accordance with God's character.

Seeing these scriptures, it is clear that there is no more any application of the law to our lives. Is this true?

1 John 3:4 tells us that sin is the transgression of the law, and in Romans 6:15 we are exhorted, What then? shall we sin (i.e. transgress the law), because we are not under the law but under grace?

And also Romans 8:7 says, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

This would indicate to me, that the spiritual mind is at peace with God because it is subject to the law of God, and cannot be otherwise.

So I would venture to say that what all this means is that Christ has forgiven us of past, present, and future sins by abolishing the law's ability to condemn us: sin is not imputed to us because we are not under the law, are dead to the law, and are delivered from the law; even as it is written, Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Romans 4:15, and For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Romans 5:13,

And, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

So we are forgiven and the law no longer has dominion over us (Romans 7:1) as we have been made dead indeed unto sin (Romans 6:7, Romans 6:11, Romans 8:10).

And yet, if we are spiritually minded, then our minds are subject to the law of God.

Agreed, furthermore, Romans 7:14 says that the law is spiritual. When the law's ability to condemn us is removed from the law, we are left with a set of instructions for how to do what is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), and as part of the New Covenant, we are told to do what God has revealed to be holy, righteous, and good (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10).

Which brings up a question. First, a couple of scriptures, in two sections:

I.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:18

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. 1 Peter 2:21-22

The Jews had many traditions for how to keep the Sabbath and according to them, you were breaking the Sabbath if you didn't live according to those traditions. While Messiah certainly broke their traditions, he never broke the Sabbath. It is central to Christian theology that Messiah was sinless, which means, among other things, that he never broke the Sabbath. If he had broken the Sabbath, then he would have been a sinner as much in need of a Savior as the rest of us. Rather, he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the law and we are told to follow his example and to walk in the same way that he walked.

II.
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile a man...Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth into the draught, purging all meats? Mark 7:15,19.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience searewd with a hot iron: Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 1 Timothy 4:1-6.

So, in section I, we find Jesus breaking the sabbath according to the inspired opinion of the gospel writer, and also it is true that Jesus never committed any sins: therefore Jesus did not sin in breaking the sabbath, and it is also not a sin for us if we do the same.

And in section II, Jesus effectively declares all foods clean, abolishing the dietary laws of the Old Testament concerning clean and unclean animals.

If Messiah could change what counted as righteous or sin on whim, then being righteous or sinless would have no relevance. God could have just lowered His righteous standard instead of needing to bother with sending Messiah to his death. In Mark 7:19, in keeping with the description of the digestive process, it can be understood as purging all meats from the body. Furthermore, the context of the conversation was a man-made ritual purity law that said that you could be defiled by eating kosher food if it was eaten with unwashed hands, so all Messiah was doing was saying that you weren't defiled by doing that, which is keeping in line with his statement in Matthew 15:20. He never jumped topics from a man-made ritual purity law to speaking against obeying God's commands. It would have been very hypocritical of him to set aside the commands of God just a few verses after he called the Pharisees hypocrites for doing that. Furthermore, if he had set aside the commands of God, then according to God's instructions we should disregard him as a false prophet.

In regard to 1 Timothy 4:3-5, it talks about those who know the truth and God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142), so those who know the truth know what God has said is acceptable to eat, what is to be received with thanksgiving, and what has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, which is clean animals.

So then, the question that I have is concernig Romans 8:7 (I will quote it again here): Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

What is the law of God that the carnal mind is not subject to? Was Jesus being carnally minded in not being subject to the sabbath law of the ten commandments? (see 2 Corinthians 5:21 for the answer) And are we carnally minded if we do not subject ourselves to dietary laws concerning clean and unclean animals? Remember that it says in 1 Timothy 4:4 that every creature is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Indeed, it is the carnal mind that refuses to submit to God's dietary laws. In 1 Timothy 4:4, there is an "if", so he is saying every creature is good IF it belongs to the category of animals that God has said are to be received with thanksgiving. Furthermore, "broma" does not refer to every creature, but was used only to refer to the category of clean animals.

The answer is simple but hard to find, if you are not a careful student of scripture. In Hebrews 7:12,18-19 we find the following words:

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law:...For there is verily a disanulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigth unto God.

The context is discussing the superiority of an eternal priesthood to a temporal one, so the only change to the law that needed to be made was the requirement that the High Priest come from the line of Aaron. God could not have change what actions were holy, righteous, and good without first changing His holiness, righteousness, and goodness, so God's instructed for how to do that remained the same, which include keeping His dietary laws. For example, 1 Peter 1:14-16 and Leviticus 11:44-45 says that we are to keep God's dietary laws because He is holy, so it is about acting in line with His holiness, which does not change.

So, again looking at Romans 8:7, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The question is, what is the law of God that we are subject to in our minds if we are spiritually minded? On the one hand, I don't want to change the meaning of the law of God in that verse, but on the other hand, I don't believe that the whole of scripture bears out that when it says the law of God here, it can possibly be referring to the law of Moses.

So, going back to the context of some of the other verse we have mentioned:

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Is it possibe that the law of God, spoken of in Romans 8:7, could be referring to our subjection to the Lordship of the one to whom we have been married to instead of the law? Remember that in Galatians Paul relates to us that being under the law is slavery, and yet in James we are told that there is a law of liberty; perhaps this law of liberty is set forth in the fact that we as bona fide believers are willing servants of our Lord Jesus Christ (Psalm 110:3), no longer being in bondage to the law (Galatians 4:21-31 -- Galatians 5:1-4).

In Romans 8:2 it is written, For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

In Romans 7:22 - Romans 8:2, the law of God and the law of the Spirit are two ways of referring to the same thing, which are contrasted with the law of sin and death, so you should not equate God's law with the law of sin and death, but just the opposite.

And in Romans 3:27 we find the words, Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Righteousness in the New Testament is not according to the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ (see also 1 Corinthians 15:1-4):

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13.

The law of faith is that one where we trust God about how we should live and what we should eat, so it is the same as God's law, for the righteous shall live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4). The law was not given for the purpose of becoming righteous or for the purpose of inheriting the promise, but that fact that we shouldn't obey the law for those purposes does not mean that we shouldn't obey the law for the purposes for which was given. And one of those reasons is to demonstrate our faith in God for how we should live.

...and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

Philippians 3:9.

Messiah is the goal of the law (Romans 10:4), so it is all about him and developing a relationship with him. Prior to Paul's realization of who the Messiah was, he had been keeping the law without this focus, so he had been completely missing the point, which is why he considered it to be rubbish.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Romans 4:3.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 4:5.

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. Romans 4:9.

Again, the law is not instructions for how to become righteous, but rather it is instructions for how those who are righteous are to do what is righteous.

A few last things, and then we will finish:

The fact that we are no longer under the Old Testament law means that we are in a heap of trouble, because now we no longer have an understanding of sin, unless something in the New Testament can define it for us. I think that Paul does this perfectly in Romans 8:3:

God's instructions for how to do what is righteous are based on His righteousness, which does not change. Sin is acting against God's character, which does not change, so sin does not change either. The law was give to reveal to use what sin is, so regardless of what covenant someone is under or regardless of whether someone is required not to sin, anyone who wants to gain a clear understand of what sin is can do so by reading God's law.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak though the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fufilled in us, who walk not after the fesh, but after the Spirit.

The requirement of the law is obedience and Messiah came to set us free from sin or disobedience to the law so that we could be free to obey it meet its righteous requirement.

In the righteousness of faith, sin is defined as walking according to the flesh. If we walk after the Spirit, and not after the flesh, the righteousness of the New Testament requirement will be fulfilled in us; as I most certainly believe that in Romans 8:4, when Paul refers to the righteousness of the law, he is also here referring to the New Testament requirement of being under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, because For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. The New Testament law being the requirement to walk by faith and also to be subject to the moral teachings of the New Testament in our spiritual minds, while none of these laws have dominion over us in that we, being in Christ, are no longer condemned and cannot be condemned, the condition for this freedom is that we be born again and thus be spiritually minded. And those who are spiritually minded are subject to the Lordship of Jesus Christ within their minds. Until we come to that place of relationship with Jesus Christ, wherein we hear from Him on a personal level, we must be subject to the law of God: since this law has been changed (Hebrews 7:12), let us search the New Testament to find what it has been changed to; for if you do so, you will see that the moral requirement is greater than in that of the Old Testament, the righteousness required is a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20); and yet, because we are given the power of the Holy Spirit to complete the new requirement we find that his yoke is easy and his burden is light. Matthew 11:30.

While there is no condemnation for those who are in Messiah (Romans 8:1), those who are in Messiah ought to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6), which means that we ought to walk in obedience to the law in the same way he did. As part of showing what it means to confess Messiah as Lord, Romans 10:5-9 quotes from Deuteronomy 30:11-14, where it talks about living in obedience to God's law. When Jesus was telling people to repent and to come follow him, he was telling them to turn from their sins in transgression of God's law and to follow his example of obedience to it. In Matthew 11:28-30, he was referencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where God's law is the good way where we will find rest for our souls:

Jeremiah 6:16-19 Thus says the Lord: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ 17 I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Pay attention to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not pay attention.’ 18 Therefore hear, O nations, and know, O congregation, what will happen to them. 19 Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing disaster upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not paid attention to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it.

 

[amadeois]

Pages and pages and ?????

Similar to that old commercial with thath old lady advertsing hamburgers:

WHERE IS THE MEAT?

 

[giftofGod2]

Hi Soyeong, have three things to say to you.

1) (Sorry; ) it is one of my pet peeves that when people respond to my posts, they sometimes like to break them up into pieces rather than responding to them as whole messages. Therefore I encourage you to go back and read my post through entirely once again, just to make sure that you agree or disagree with it as an entire message and not parts that you disagree with; because sometimes with my messages you will find that you can agree with all parts because their context gives you understanding so that you can agree with them, when without that context, you may disagree with parts because they are not taken within the entirety of their context.

I know that if a person can respond after having read the entire message, they may not have as many objections as if or when they went through it bit-by bit trying to find something wrong with specific points in the message.

2) Concerning your relation of Matthew 11:28-30 to Jeremiah 6:16-19, I am not in disagreement, but I would use this opportunity to quote a scripture which tells us that Jesus is the personification of the law, and which tells us also that in seeking righteousness through law-keeping the Jewish people missed it:

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Si'-on a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.

In this passage, the Gentiles certainly did not stumble over that stumblingstone, because they were oblivious to the righteousness which is in the law and didn't even seek it; therefore God apprehended them by giving them faith and they thus attained to the righteousness of faith. Israel, on the other hand, stumbled at that stumblingstone, and sought to attain to righteousness through law-keeping. In doing so they were seeking to establish their own righteousness and were not submitting to the righteousness of God. The interesting thing is, that that stumbingstone, which is the law, is actually Jesus in this passage (if you study it out carefully) as the personification of the law: He is a Person and not a requirement engaven in stones. So being a Person He is more flexible than a requirement engraven in stones.

3) I'm curious about your knowledge of the Greek word broma. Is it the word translated every in 1 Timothy 4:4? And also, in what sense does this word bear out that it does not mean every but that it means every clean animal? Do you have anything from Zodhiates on how the Greek in 1 Timothy 4:4 bears out the fact that it does not mean every but rather every clean animal? Also, how does the Greek of the word translated nothing in this verse bear out on the meaning of the passage? When it says nothing is to be refused, is it really saying, no clean animal is to be refused? How do the Greek words in this passage limit every and nothing to clean animals? I appreciate your input from whatever scholarly source you can quote to me out of.

 

[giftofGod2]

If you don't find meat in the message, then it is probably only because it went over your head.

It is very MEATY to me.

Pages and pages and ?????

Similar to that old commercial with thath old lady advertsing hamburgers:

WHERE IS THE MEAT?

 

[amadeois]

May be is because we are all in cyberspace????

 

[amadeois]

Ephesians and Colossians,

Did you people get the message out of those verses?

What is it behind it?

Too many people quote them.

WHAT DO THEY MEAN?

 

[Soyeong]

Hi Soyeong, have three things to say to you.

1) (Sorry; ) it is one of my pet peeves that when people respond to my posts, they sometimes like to break them up into pieces rather than responding to them as whole messages. Therefore I encourage you to go back and read my post through entirely once again, just to make sure that you agree or disagree with it as an entire message and not parts that you disagree with; because sometimes with my messages you will find that you can agree with all parts because their context gives you understanding so that you can agree with them, when without that context, you may disagree with parts because they are not taken within the entirety of their context.

I know that if a person can respond after having read the entire message, they may not have as many objections as if or when they went through it bit-by bit trying to find something wrong with specific points in the message.

2) Concerning your relation of Matthew 11:28-30 to Jeremiah 6:16-19, I am not in disagreement, but I would use this opportunity to quote a scripture which tells us that Jesus is the personification of the law, and which tells us also that in seeking righteousness through law-keeping the Jewish people missed it:

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Si'-on a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.

In this passage, the Gentiles certainly did not stumble over that stumblingstone, because they were oblivious to the righteousness which is in the law and didn't even seek it; therefore God apprehended them by giving them faith and they thus attained to the righteousness of faith. Israel, on the other hand, stumbled at that stumblingstone, and sought to attain to righteousness through law-keeping. In doing so they were seeking to establish their own righteousness and were not submitting to the righteousness of God. The interesting thing is, that that stumbingstone, which is the law, is actually Jesus in this passage (if you study it out carefully) as the personification of the law: He is a Person and not a requirement engaven in stones. So being a Person He is more flexible than a requirement engraven in stones.

3) I'm curious about your knowledge of the Greek word broma. Is it the word translated every in 1 Timothy 4:4? And also, in what sense does this word bear out that it does not mean every but that it means every clean animal? Do you have anything from Zodhiates on how the Greek in 1 Timothy 4:4 bears out the fact that it does not mean every but rather every clean animal? Also, how does the Greek of the word translated nothing in this verse bear out on the meaning of the passage? When it says nothing is to be refused, is it really saying, no clean animal is to be refused? How do the Greek words in this passage limit every and nothing to clean animals? I appreciate your input from whatever scholarly source you can quote to me out of.

1.) Sorry about breaking up your post into smaller parts. I find that it is better to write my thoughts and respond to your thoughts in an organized manner where you can keep track of what part of your post I am specifically responding to, especially when it is a longer post. Or for instance, when you respond in the manner that you did, I can't tell whether or not you agreed with my points about Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:13-14, Romans 6:14, and Romans 7:1-6. And if you didn't agree, why didn't you agree? If I am right about how they should be interpreted, then doesn't that affect the rest of what you said?

2.) The issue is that there are good and bad reasons for obeying God's law. The law was never about what we legalistically earn in return for our obedience, but rather it was about demonstrating our love to God (John 14:15) and about demonstrating our faith in God about how to live (Habakkuk 2:4). In Romans 9:30-32, the reason why Israel failed to obtain righteousness was not that they lived in obedience to what God had commanded them to do but God gave them faulty instructions, but rather the problem was that they obeyed the law legalistically as though righteousness were by works instead of obeying the law spiritually as though righteousness were by faith, as the Gentiles were doing. The one and only way to become justified is by faith, so if Moses was justified, then he was justified by faith before the law was given to him, which means that it was never needed or given for that purpose, but rather it was given to instruct how those who had been declared righteous by faith should live righteously by faith.

3.) The word everyone means every, but it is often qualified based on the context to mean everyone in a certain group or category rather to mean everyone on the planet. When people talk about the category of food, they often have different ideas about what belongs in that category. For example, some people consider lutefisk to be food, and while I grant that it is something that could be eaten, I would never consider eating it short of starvation, so it is not something that I consider to be food or what comes to mind when I am talking about food. Michel Lotito has eaten bicycles, shopping carts, televisions, and a Cessna 150, so he would also have a different understanding of what belongs to the category of food. So we should not insert our understanding of what belongs in that category, but rather we should use the category of everything Paul considered to be food, which was everything given as food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. To suggest that he was saying we should accept unclean food with thanksgiving is like suggesting that it is acceptable to commit murder, adultery, theft, idolatry, or to break any of God's other commands. Note that it flat out does not say that nothing is to be refused, but rather it is qualified by saying that nothing is to be refused IF it it is something that is to be received belongs to the category of things that are to be received with thanksgiving. The word of God has only sanctified certain foods for eating and the fact that some foods are sanctified inherently means that some foods are not sanctified for eating, so it can not refer to all foods being acceptable to eat. We can't give thanks and give glory to God by doing something that He has said is detestable to Him. Here's Strong's definition:

Strong's #1033: broma (pronounced bro'-mah)

from the base of 977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:--meat, victuals.

4.) There is still the issue that you should obey God instead of Paul if you hold to your interpretation of what he said.

 

[bugkiller]

Ephesians 2:15, Havng abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.

Colossians 2:13-14, And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses: Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

Romans 6:14, For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 7:4, Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Galatians 2:19, For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

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

--------------

Seeing these scriptures, it is clear that there is no more any application of the law to our lives. Is this true?

1 John 3:4 tells us that sin is the transgression of the law, and in Romans 6:15 we are exhorted, What then? shall we sin (i.e. transgress the law), because we are not under the law but under grace?

And also Romans 8:7 says, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

This would indicate to me, that the spiritual mind is at peace with God because it is subject to the law of God, and cannot be otherwise.

So I would venture to say that what all this means is that Christ has forgiven us of past, present, and future sins by abolishing the law's ability to condemn us: sin is not imputed to us because we are not under the law, are dead to the law, and are delivered from the law; even as it is written, Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Romans 4:15, and For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Romans 5:13,

And, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

So we are forgiven and the law no longer has dominion over us (Romans 7:1) as we have been made dead indeed unto sin (Romans 6:7, Romans 6:11, Romans 8:10).

And yet, if we are spiritually minded, then our minds are subject to the law of God.

Which brings up a question. First, a couple of scriptures, in two sections:

I.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:18

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. 1 Peter 2:21-22

II.
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile a man...Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth into the draught, purging all meats? Mark 7:15,19.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience searewd with a hot iron: Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 1 Timothy 4:1-6.

So, in section I, we find Jesus breaking the sabbath according to the inspired opinion of the gospel writer, and also it is true that Jesus never committed any sins: therefore Jesus did not sin in breaking the sabbath, and it is also not a sin for us if we do the same.

And in section II, Jesus effectively declares all foods clean, abolishing the dietary laws of the Old Testament concerning clean and unclean animals.

So then, the question that I have is concernig Romans 8:7 (I will quote it again here): Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

What is the law of God that the carnal mind is not subject to? Was Jesus being carnally minded in not being subject to the sabbath law of the ten commandments? (see 2 Corinthians 5:21 for the answer) And are we carnally minded if we do not subject ourselves to dietary laws concerning clean and unclean animals? Remember that it says in 1 Timothy 4:4 that every creature is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

The answer is simple but hard to find, if you are not a careful student of scripture. In Hebrews 7:12,18-19 we find the following words:

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law:...For there is verily a disanulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigth unto God.

So, again looking at Romans 8:7, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The question is, what is the law of God that we are subject to in our minds if we are spiritually minded? On the one hand, I don't want to change the meaning of the law of God in that verse, but on the other hand, I don't believe that the whole of scripture bears out that when it says the law of God here, it can possibly be referring to the law of Moses.

So, going back to the context of some of the other verse we have mentioned:

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Is it possibe that the law of God, spoken of in Romans 8:7, could be referring to our subjection to the Lordship of the one to whom we have been married to instead of the law? Remember that in Galatians Paul relates to us that being under the law is slavery, and yet in James we are told that there is a law of liberty; perhaps this law of liberty is set forth in the fact that we as bona fide believers are willing servants of our Lord Jesus Christ (Psalm 110:3), no longer being in bondage to the law (Galatians 4:21-31 -- Galatians 5:1-4).

In Romans 8:2 it is written, For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

And in Romans 3:27 we find the words, Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Righteousness in the New Testament is not according to the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ (see also 1 Corinthians 15:1-4):

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13.

...and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Philippians 3:9.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Romans 4:3.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 4:5.

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. Romans 4:9.

A few last things, and then we will finish:

The fact that we are no longer under the Old Testament law means that we are in a heap of trouble, because now we no longer have an understanding of sin, unless something in the New Testament can define it for us. I think that Paul does this perfectly in Romans 8:3:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak though the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fufilled in us, who walk not after the fesh, but after the Spirit.

In the righteousness of faith, sin is defined as walking according to the flesh. If we walk after the Spirit, and not after the flesh, the righteousness of the New Testament requirement will be fulfilled in us; as I most certainly believe that in Romans 8:4, when Paul refers to the righteousness of the law, he is also here referring to the New Testament requirement of being under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, because For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. The New Testament law being the requirement to walk by faith and also to be subject to the moral teachings of the New Testament in our spiritual minds, while none of these laws have dominion over us in that we, being in Christ, are no longer condemned and cannot be condemned, the condition for this freedom is that we be born again and thus be spiritually minded. And those who are spiritually minded are subject to the Lordship of Jesus Christ within their minds. Until we come to that place of relationship with Jesus Christ, wherein we hear from Him on a personal level, we must be subject to the law of God: since this law has been changed (Hebrews 7:12), let us search the New Testament to find what it has been changed to; for if you do so, you will see that the moral requirement is greater than in that of the Old Testament, the righteousness required is a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20); and yet, because we are given the power of the Holy Spirit to complete the new requirement we find that his yoke is easy and his burden is light. Matthew 11:30.

Nicely done. A bit long and many sadly won't read it all.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Paul spoke about a number of different types of laws, such as the law of God (Romans 3:31, 7:22-25, 8:7), the law of sin (Romans 7:23-25), the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), the law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2), the law of faith (Romans 3:27), the law of righteousness (Romans 9:31), the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21), and works of law (Galatians 3:10), so the issue becomes about correctly identifying which law Paul was talking about. As we are doing this, we should keep in mind that we must obey God rather than man and the way that God has instructed us to tell whether someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him is that they taught His people against obeying His law (Deuteronomy 13:4-6). In other words, if you remain convinced that Paul was teaching anyone against obeying God's law (contrary to 2 Peter 3:15-17), then you should consider him to be a false prophet and obey God instead. However, I think when we rightly divide which law is being talked about, then we will see that it was only man's laws that Paul spoke against obeying.

What law is Paul talking about in -

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

seeing he talks about coveting a few verses later?

What law is Paul talking about in -

8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Rom 8

What law is Paul talking about in -

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Rom 10

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Pages and pages and ?????

Similar to that old commercial with thath old lady advertsing hamburgers:

WHERE IS THE MEAT?

Don't you have something better to do than complain?

bugkiller

 

[amadeois]

It shows you do not know the answer.

You are a vegetarian.

 

[bugkiller]

1.) Sorry about breaking up your post into smaller parts. I find that it is better to write my thoughts and respond to your thoughts in an organized manner where you can keep track of what part of your post I am specifically responding to, especially when it is a longer post. Or for instance, when you respond in the manner that you did, I can't tell whether or not you agreed with my points about Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:13-14, Romans 6:14, and Romans 7:1-6. And if you didn't agree, why didn't you agree?

2.) The issue is that there are good and bad reasons for obeying God's law. The law was never about what we legalistically earn in return for our obedience, but rather it was about demonstrating our love to God (John 14:15) and about demonstrating our faith in God about how to live (Habakkuk 2:4). In Romans 9:30-32, the reason why Israel failed to obtain righteousness was not that they lived in obedience to what God had commanded them to do but God gave them faulty instructions, but rather the problem was that they obeyed the law legalistically as though righteousness were by works instead of obeying the law spiritually as though righteousness were by faith, as the Gentiles were doing. The one and only way to become justified is by faith, so if Moses was justified, then he was justified by faith before the law was given to him, which means that it was never needed or given for that purpose, but rather it was given to instruct how those who had been declared righteous by faith should live righteously by faith.

Sorry to do this to you, but if what you say is true, why do people of your persuasion quote Rev 22:14? It comes across as bragging and gloating to me. It also promotes the idea of your excluded, ha, ha and I'm not.

It is clear to me that John isn't talking about the OC law, when I read all of Johns works in the NT?

bugkiller

 

[Travis93]

Deuteronomy 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
Deuteronomy 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deuteronomy 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deuteronomy 13:4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Deuteronomy 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
Don't trust anyone who leads you away from the law, even if they give signs and wonders. Just because they claim to be of God doesn't mean what they say is true.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Ezekiel 13:3 Thus saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!
Ezekiel 13:4 O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts.
Ezekiel 13:5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord.
Ezekiel 13:6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The Lord saith: and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.
Ezekiel 13:7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The Lord saith it; albeit I have not spoken?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

 

[bugkiller]

Deuteronomy 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
Deuteronomy 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deuteronomy 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deuteronomy 13:4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Deuteronomy 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Don't trust anyone who leads you away from the law, even if they give signs and wonders.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Yes don't trust anyone who believes Jeremiah.

bugkiller

 

[expos4ever]

Seeing these scriptures, it is clear that there is no more any application of the law to our lives. Is this true?

Yes.

But also note that it was ever only the Jew who was under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses (with the odd exception being a Gentile who was otherwise fully integrated into Jewish society).

There are some prophetic verses that suggest that, at some point, "the Law" will apply to Gentiles. I suggest, but will not argue the point, that the fulfillment of these prophecies does not mean that the Law of Moses becomes universal.

 

[expos4ever]

1 John 3:4 tells us that sin is the transgression of the law, and in Romans 6:15 we are exhorted, What then? shall we sin (i.e. transgress the law), because we are not under the law but under grace?

And also Romans 8:7 says, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Paul's use of the word "law" is complex. Sometimes (in fact most times), he uses it to refer to the Law of Moses - a code given to Jews and Jews only. Other times, Paul uses the word "law" in different ways (no time to get into that now).

So I would venture to say that what all this means is that Christ has forgiven us of past, present, and future sins by abolishing the law's ability to condemn us:...

Remember: The Law of Moses (what Paul usually means by "law") was for Jews only; so if you are a Gentile, the Law of Moses does not apply to you (no doubt, there will be howls of disagreement - I am ready to deal with that).

 

[giftofGod2]

expo:

It can perhaps even be argued that the law of Moses also does not apply to the Christian Jew (who has received revelation), since Romans 7:1 tells us that the chapter is addressed to those who know the law.

 

[Soyeong]

Yes.

But also note that it was ever only the Jew who was under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses (with the odd exception being a Gentile who was otherwise fully integrated into Jewish society).

There are some prophetic verses that suggest that, at some point, "the Law" will apply to Gentiles. I suggest, but will not argue the point, that the fulfillment of these prophecies does not mean that the Law of Moses becomes universal.

When God judges the wicked, do you think that He will use the standard of His righteousness regardless of whether or not they happen to be Jews?

 

[expos4ever]

expo:

It can perhaps even be argued that the law of Moses also does not apply to the Christian Jew (who has received revelation), since Romans 7:1 tells us that the chapter is addressed to those who know the law.

I agree, although I thought one could have inferred same from my earlier posts.

I am of the view that the Law of Moses applies to no one, as of the Cross.