Who did away with the law?

[winslow]

It seems that most here are missing the point of the topic. My question was how come no prominent biblical scholars (until fairly recently) held the view that the moral code has passed, been abolished ect. The list of commentators in the initial thread was to demonstrate that until sometime well into the 20th century the moral code was considered a standard for christian conduct.

 

[davidsheart77]

It seems that most here are missing the point of the topic. My question was how come no prominent biblical scholars (until fairly recently) held the view that the moral code has passed, been abolished ect. The list of commentators in the initial thread was to demonstrate that until sometime well into the 20th century the moral code was considered a standard for christian conduct.

Well I don't neccesarily agree with that have you read the commentary of Martin Luther or matthew henry?

 

[VictorC]

It seems that most here are missing the point of the topic. My question was how come no prominent biblical scholars (until fairly recently) held the view that the moral code has passed, been abolished ect. The list of commentators in the initial thread was to demonstrate that until sometime well into the 20th century the moral code was considered a standard for christian conduct.

I don't place a great deal of stock into the writings of commentators, since as often as not they have an agenda to change the meaning of Biblical passages so that they align with the dogmas of the various confessionals that came into being since the 1600's. This is the case with Romans 3:31 as well, where the meaning that seems to be implied by reading the verse out of its context takes on a different meaning once you place it back into the paragraph it came from.

The law that Paul upholds is quoted a few verses later, and it is from that we can determine what law is established. Remember, the chapter breaks in our English Bibles don't accurately represent the original manuscripts.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.​

The law established is the Genesis record, shown by the quote from Genesis 15:6. It is that historical record that shows that righteousness is imputed by faith in God, and not by works according to the law mediated by Moses that didn't even exist for another 430 years after this account. Romans 3:31 continues the vein of thought that was presented in Romans 3:21, which states "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets", and the witness of the Law in this case refers to the writings of Moses, inclusive of Genesis. It does not support the thought of continuing in the covenant law mediated by Moses, and that thought contradicts the author's argument that righteousness is attained by faith, and not by works.

 

[VictorC]

Ok . Then why the thread ? If the Law has no use , it doesn't matter whether it was done away or not .

That's a good point.

 

[VictorC]

The cross does not do away with that because that was not true in the first place. Because the jews at that time looked at it that way, doesn't mean it was right. The law was never for justification therefore the cross cannot do away with something that never was.

The Jews understood that the law was conveyed to them in the tenor of compliance a requisite to live, and I had mentioned that before in a post you didn't acknowledge on another thread (it can be found here --> Bump for ProphecyKid - this post is languishing for your attention.):

the covenant that came from Mount Sinai was agreed upon by its recipients in Exodus 19:8, which you quoted. That covenant was unilaterally dictated by the Sovereign to His vassal Israel when He delivered them from Egyptian bondage, and the contract agreement you hope to find is not according to the tenor of a Suzerainty covenant as Sinai was - and that covenant was dictated with compliance requisite to live and possess the land the Sovereign was giving to His vassal (this is affirmed to the generation entering the promised land in Deuteronomy 30:15-16).​

The law mandated compliance to be justified, and Galatians 3 points that out as well as pointing out that no one was justified by the law:

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."
12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."​

Living by the law mandates compliance to the entire covenant, and no one met that standard.

 

[Merlin]

In the early church, discussion of which laws to follow came up Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses. 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are. The consensus was: Acts 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: Acts 15:29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

The Jews understood that the law was conveyed to them in the tenor of compliance a requisite to live, and I had mentioned that before in a post you didn't acknowledge on another thread (it can be found here --> Bump for ProphecyKid - this post is languishing for your attention.):

the covenant that came from Mount Sinai was agreed upon by its recipients in Exodus 19:8, which you quoted. That covenant was unilaterally dictated by the Sovereign to His vassal Israel when He delivered them from Egyptian bondage, and the contract agreement you hope to find is not according to the tenor of a Suzerainty covenant as Sinai was - and that covenant was dictated with compliance requisite to live and possess the land the Sovereign was giving to His vassal (this is affirmed to the generation entering the promised land in Deuteronomy 30:15-16).​

The law mandated compliance to be justified, and Galatians 3 points that out as well as pointing out that no one was justified by the law:

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."
12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."​

Living by the law mandates compliance to the entire covenant, and no one met that standard.

Victor C, with all do respect, I have no time for merry go rounds. I have been here for a long time. What happens at the end of these debates? I can go on and respond to everything because since I came here there is no argument I have not heard or defended with the exception of one or 2 ridiculous comments. So if I opted out of answering a post directed to me, it could be because I didn't see it or I was just tired of the endless back and forth. When someone says that lying was not wrong before Sinai and that Abraham was blessed for lying, I know its time to forget it. That was not you by the way. Anyways, this is a reason why i left CF for a few months. At least now I am finding a few people who are not just interested in winning debates but actually want to have a fruitful discussion. Oh and this is no criticism to you in particular, I am being general.

 

[davidsheart77]

I don't place a great deal of stock into the writings of commentators, since as often as not they have an agenda to change the meaning of Biblical passages so that they align with the dogmas of the various confessionals that came into being since the 1600's. This is the case with Romans 3:31 as well, where the meaning that seems to be implied by reading the verse out of its context takes on a different meaning once you place it back into the paragraph it came from.

The law that Paul upholds is quoted a few verses later, and it is from that we can determine what law is established. Remember, the chapter breaks in our English Bibles don't accurately represent the original manuscripts.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
​

The law established is the Genesis record, shown by the quote from Genesis 15:6. It is that historical record that shows that righteousness is imputed by faith in God, and not by works according to the law mediated by Moses that didn't even exist for another 430 years after this account. Romans 3:31 continues the vein of thought that was presented in Romans 3:21, which states "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets", and the witness of the Law in this case refers to the writings of Moses, inclusive of Genesis. It does not support the thought of continuing in the covenant law mediated by Moses, and that thought contradicts the author's argument that righteousness is attained by faith, and not by works.

so then this thread becomes kind of pointless.

 

[VictorC]

Victor C, with all do respect, I have no time for merry go rounds. I have been here for a long time. What happens at the end of these debates? I can go on and respond to everything because since I came here there is no argument I have not heard or defended with the exception of one or 2 ridiculous comments. So if I opted out of answering a post directed to me, it could be because I didn't see it or I was just tired of the endless back and forth. When someone says that lying was not wrong before Sinai and that Abraham was blessed for lying, I know its time to forget it. That was not you by the way. Anyways, this is a reason why i left CF for a few months. At least now I am finding a few people who are not just interested in winning debates but actually want to have a fruitful discussion. Oh and this is no criticism to you in particular, I am being general.

Criticism of my post based on the claims of other members is a new logical fallacy, the name of which escapes me at the moment. It is amply self-evident that lying is wrong, and was wrong before the law existed and continues to be wrong after we were delivered by the law (Romans 7:6-7) ordained in the first covenant that was taken away by the Hand of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:9). Sin existed before the law did, as Romans 5:13 shows.

The point I was responding to was that you thought Jewish thought was wrong when they considered the law to be given with compliance requisite to live. This is what you wrote:

The cross does not do away with that because that was not true in the first place. Because the jews at that time looked at it that way, doesn't mean it was right. The law was never for justification therefore the cross cannot do away with something that never was.

That Jewish thought you claimed was wrong was actually directly in line with how the law was given to them.

I don't consider these forums a place for endless debates, although they are far too common here. I hope the end of the educational dialogue has a goal of the unity of the faith we have been entrusted with, as Ephesians 4 outlines for us.

11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head----Christ----
16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.​

 

[VictorC]

so then this thread becomes kind of pointless.

That's a good point.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by davidsheart77

so then this thread becomes kind of pointless.

That's a good point.

In that case, do we now start making pointless posts?

 

[davidsheart77]

Thank God it's not by law keeping or I would be seriously screwed, with this sinful nature still dwelling within me. Thank God for Our Lord Jesus Christ who has freed me to follow him in spirit. I don't know about you guys but when I finally understood the Gospel I could not stop crying at all. I could not stop thinking or thanking him, for what he has done. When I understood sin, my nature, humanity and the law and how everything operates(thanks to the Lord) i was just overwhelmed. I never understood it was just like one of those things, so yeah I wouldn't go to hell and have a better life or something. But when I understood Romans, galatians, colossians,. Its amazing how sweet it is brothers that we have this mercy. Its amazing!!! "By grace ye are saved, that is not of yourselves lest any man should boast but through Faith in Christ Jesus." These words have been awesome. So shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid. Why would I want to sin! with such freedom and mercy only to do love and live for love and Christ. Give glory to him. We are Free. We are free.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Criticism of my post based on the claims of other members is a new logical fallacy, the name of which escapes me at the moment. It is amply self-evident that lying is wrong, and was wrong before the law existed and continues to be wrong after we were delivered by the law (Romans 7:6-7) ordained in the first covenant that was taken away by the Hand of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:9). Sin existed before the law did, as Romans 5:13 shows.

The point I was responding to was that you thought Jewish thought was wrong when they considered the law to be given with compliance requisite to live. This is what you wrote:

That Jewish thought you claimed was wrong was actually directly in line with how the law was given to them.

I don't consider these forums a place for endless debates, although they are far too common here. I hope the end of the educational dialogue has a goal of the unity of the faith we have been entrusted with, as Ephesians 4 outlines for us.

11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head----Christ----
16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.​

I think you misunderstood me a little bit. Or maybe it was me. I was simply responding to the fact that you pointed out that I did not respond to one of your posts on another thread. I was telling you the possible reason why that was the case. The reference to what someone else said was just to give you an example in that light. I am very hesitant to debate on this topic. I am sorry but it just seems like an endless debate going no where.

 

[VictorC]

I think you misunderstood me a little bit. Or maybe it was me. I was simply responding to the fact that you pointed out that I did not respond to one of your posts on another thread. I was telling you the possible reason why that was the case. The reference to what someone else said was just to give you an example in that light. I am very hesitant to debate on this topic. I am sorry but it just seems like an endless debate going no where.

The possible reason isn't one applicable to me, hence the quickness by which I dismissed it. I can't be responsible for posts written by others and the effect they have on you.

The discussions actually do go somewhere, but it has been my experience that the typical Adventist isn't willing to go where the discussions direct them. It has been that way for a long time, and it is a practice garnered from Ellen White, who wrote this opinion in response to the critique of the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine that Elder A.F. Ballenger presented to her for her response:

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {MR760 19.2}​

Allow me to extract the message this paragraph contains for ease of consumption. Ellen White never did respond to Ballenger's critique, but instead blasted him for some spiritualist flaws in his character, and ignored the critique completely. Ellen White's instructed members of the church to reject anything and everything that contradicts the unique doctrines of Adventism. A key sentence in this paragraph reads:

And while the Scriptures are God's Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake.​

The application of the Bible refutes the Sanctuary Doctrine, and there are numerous thread in GT that address that point. God didn't sustain the pillar Adventism relies on for their distinction apart from the unity of the faith.

Why is that important? Because it allows us to remove the artificial insertion of the qualifier "if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years" that Ellen White added into her sentence. Removing that qualifier renders the key sentence in a manner where its meaning is easily seen:

And while the Scriptures are God's Word, and are to be respected, the application of them is a great mistake.​

Rejecting the piles of Scripture offered is the reason these discussions become pointless. For the rest of us, these discussions are enlightening and entertaining at times.

 

[bugkiller]

Originally Posted by davidsheart77

so then this thread becomes kind of pointless.
In that case, do we now start making pointless posts?

I thought that is what we have been doing as long as I remember. It seems as though we make no comment because the same issue if a repost by some is made about the same issue every few months, if they wait that long. I think VictorC used a quote that so states they are not to listen to anybody outside their church. They truely obey such. I am wondering how to have a converstation with such. It seems impossible so I resign myself to commenting for the lurker looking for information. At least they are honest.

I see you read the Parade in the Sunday paper. They have some neat toons.

Amended to add that I made this post before reading the above post by VictorC.

bugkiller

 

[Frogster]

The cross does not do away with that because that was not true in the first place. Because the jews at that time looked at it that way, doesn't mean it was right. The law was never for justification therefore the cross cannot do away with something that never was.

Atonement for sin was not their righteousness of their day?

Why were the Gentiles called, the .."Gentile sinners"?

Gal 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;


Leviticus 10:10 You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean, 11 and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes that the LORD has spoken to them by Moses.”


And..

Leviticus 5:6 he shall bring to the LORD as his compensation for the sin that he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Did the Gentiles do that?

 

[Frogster]

Thank God it's not by law keeping or I would be seriously screwed, with this sinful nature still dwelling within me. Thank God for Our Lord Jesus Christ who has freed me to follow him in spirit. I don't know about you guys but when I finally understood the Gospel I could not stop crying at all. I could not stop thinking or thanking him, for what he has done. When I understood sin, my nature, humanity and the law and how everything operates(thanks to the Lord) i was just overwhelmed. I never understood it was just like one of those things, so yeah I wouldn't go to hell and have a better life or something. But when I understood Romans, galatians, colossians,. Its amazing how sweet it is brothers that we have this mercy. Its amazing!!! "By grace ye are saved, that is not of yourselves lest any man should boast but through Faith in Christ Jesus." These words have been awesome. So shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid. Why would I want to sin! with such freedom and mercy only to do love and live for love and Christ. Give glory to him. We are Free. We are free.

Yes, there is historical precedent that shows us the law was for the age of flesh.

All were bound up in sin an law in Gal 3:22-23..UNTIL..

 

[Frogster]

In the early church, discussion of which laws to follow came up Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses. 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are. The consensus was: Acts 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: Acts 15:29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Good stuff. And a few years later Paul told the Corinthians to eat it all.

 

[bugkiller]

Victor C, with all do respect, I have no time for merry go rounds. I have been here for a long time. What happens at the end of these debates? I can go on and respond to everything because since I came here there is no argument I have not heard or defended with the exception of one or 2 ridiculous comments. So if I opted out of answering a post directed to me, it could be because I didn't see it or I was just tired of the endless back and forth. When someone says that lying was not wrong before Sinai and that Abraham was blessed for lying, I know its time to forget it. That was not you by the way. Anyways, this is a reason why i left CF for a few months. At least now I am finding a few people who are not just interested in winning debates but actually want to have a fruitful discussion. Oh and this is no criticism to you in particular, I am being general.

Will you explain Gen 12:10-20. Abraham instructed Sari to lie about being his wife. This is Abraham lying thru his wife Sari and being blessed by Pharoh with sheep, oxen, he asses, menservants, maidservants, she asses, and camels. You may find these words in the NASB verse 16 Therefore he treated Abram well for her sake; and gave him sheep and oxen and donkeys and male and female servants and female donkeys and camels.

Here are some other versions:

He treated Abram well because of her, and Abram acquired flocks and herds, male and female donkeys, male and female slaves, and camels. (HCSB)

He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and maidservants, and camels. (NIV)

the king was kind to Abram because he thought Abram was her brother. He gave Abram sheep, cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels. (NCV)

and to Abram he hath done good because of her, and he hath sheep and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and handmaids, and she-asses, and camels. (YLT)

Verses 10-12 show th preperation and v 13 gives the lie. A half lie is a full lie. Here Abram was clearly denying that Sari was his wife. And as I showed by the above quotes was blessed by Pharoh. Pharoh accused Abram of lying in vs 18, 19.

I did not make this up. If you have some other reasonable interpretation on the above I want to hear it.

bugkiller

 

[dinonum]

Can I ask why it would be important for the laws to be in Scripture if there was no application on the life of a Christian?