Who did away with the law?

[bugkiller]

Not quite. To give you an idea of how rediculouse this argument is imagine a jew prior to the incarnation walking on a Roman road on his way to the synagogue (or any other destination) on the sabbath. Would he be breaking the sabbath? Only if it was further than a sabbaths day journey, despite the fact that they worked on the road on the sabbath day.

It's amazing how legalistically others look at the situation when they try to prove a point. There were many things that would be considered "work" yet were permitted on the sabbath day. Taking a pharisitical view doesn't help your argument.

I would just like to reemphasize the original question of the thread since no one has answered yet. The question was reffering to the fairly recent idea that the moral code no longer exists as a standard of christian conduct. Even as recently as about 20 years ago you would not have heard any preacher advocating that God's moral laws were not binding on the christian That is not to say they were promoting their validity as a point of justification, just that they were a standard of conduct. Bringing up the same arguments of the last 20 years still doesn't address the fact that it is a fairly new argument.

Ridiculous, How? You have changed the subject by changing the word riding to walking. I said nothing about going to synagogue (church). I did talk about the method of getting there. Riding your ass (driving a vehicle - modern day beast of burden) to synagogue is a clear violation of the 4th commandment. This is not legalism, it is sin if you claim obedience to such. Obedience and legalism are two different things. You claim legalism because you do not wish to submit to the law as you demand of others and claim obedience to. Notice I said claim. I did not even say anything about a sabbath day's journey. Is your church within a mile? How many of the people that go to your church live with in a mile of it? Are they and possibly you sinning to worship God? Do you see a problem? I do. So don't you blaspheme God as Paul said the Jews do in Romans 2:17-24 for context only quoting v 24: For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

It seems that you require a leash because you have no common sense. I put my pooch on a leash while I am gone to insure that she stays home and keep the neighbor from shooting her. She furthers restricts her limited freedom by going around the nearest fixed object till she can not do anything except lay down or sit. She can not even reach her water. That is not very smart to me. When she does this at night she has figured out if she barks she can get free because I will come out and unwind her. But she is a dog exhibiting great sense in other things. She is very smart. Who knows, if I keep leading her back around the object maybe one day she will figure it out. She is not very cooperative in being lead round and round the object to the additional freedom. She does like very much just to be free from the leash, the simple solution. You too can be free from the law if you will follow the leading of the Spirit. One will find the law a Christian is under in Romans 8:1, 2 and by following the leading of the Spirit will not induldge in the lust of the flesh (sin) Gal 5:18-21. Since you are insisting that we (grace pushers) have thrown out all sense of right and wrong (moral behavior). We don't license sin. I am speaking as a Christian not as a christian. A christian in my opinion is someone that attends church as only a social function. Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than being in a garage makes you a car.

You make a valid point with: That is not to say they were promoting their validity as a point of justification, just that they were a standard of conduct. My neighbor has no use for religion and seems to abide by moral standards. That is he doesn't seem to lie, steal, commit adultery, or murder. While my ten commandment keeping neighbor encourages me to steal. I just simply don't understand. So it appears to me that my non religious neighbor observes the law in the moral sense while my highly religious encourages violation of the moral law. It is no wonder the wicked have no use for God. Do not justification and behavior go together? Or does not justification and sanctification efffect each other and thus behavior? Apparently not in reality.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Start with one of the best known and respected, FF Bruce, then I will give you more. Bruce says..


Gal 3:13, where Christ took the whole curse of the law, he says the obvious. "Paul saw that as law abrogation."

So froggy poses 2 questions.

1.Notice how life under law was a curse, as per what Deut 27;26 also says, which agrees with gal 3:10?

2. Since Jesus took all that in himslef, which brought closure, the end of an era, doesn't that bring the verse to light, that you ignore whenever I post it?...

This..


Gal 2:18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.

Bruce's book is deep and very exegetical, after you digest it, I will give you your next assignment.

He probably will not finish that assignment, unfortunately. He doesn't like your class anyway.

bugkiller

 

[New_Wineskin]

Not quite. To give you an idea of how rediculouse this argument is imagine a jew prior to the incarnation walking on a Roman road on his way to the synagogue (or any other destination) on the sabbath. Would he be breaking the sabbath? Only if it was further than a sabbaths day journey, despite the fact that they worked on the road on the sabbath day.

That "Sabbath's day walk" was an invention of the Pharasees who went against the Law to make themselves teachers in place of the Levites . Synagogues are not a part of the Law . The idea that so much walking is work but one step less is not a part of the Law . It is attempting to circumvent the Law which says to rest - not spend effort to listen to Pharasees and others .

Yes . They invented a way to disobey the Sabbath .

 

[Frogster]

He probably will not finish that assignment, unfortunately. He doesn't like your class anyway.

bugkiller

I will give him a good grade if he comes.

I don't understand why some like the strict pedagogues of gal 3:24?

I am a graceful teacher.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So , this is officially a "worship the Sabbath" thread ?

It is interesting that a day of the week has become a god .

Beware the Sabbath

Matt 24:19 "Woe yet to those in belly having and to those suckling in those the days!
20 "Be ye praying yet that no may be becoming the flight of ye of winter neither a Sabbath.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Beware the Sabbath

 

[YosemiteSam]

Start with one of the best known and respected, FF Bruce, then I will give you more. Bruce says..


Gal 3:13, where Christ took the whole curse of the law, he says the obvious. "Paul saw that as law abrogation."

Hello Frogster,

Been awhile since I have been out here. I see that your still posting and arguing that the law has been done away with. I guess a frog does bump his butt when he jumps.... LOL... Pardon the pun.

You have even gone so far as to quote FF Bruce. Well that just means there are two that bought into that erroneous argument. Even contradicts what you stated. Lets see:

You stated, "Soooo? Unsaved are bound in law and flesh, most know that. What is yeeeer point?" you can find that http//www.christianforums.com/t7484516-6/

Point is, you even know the law exist! But which ones?

I saw your question posted to JohnRabbit about the food laws. Question! Why would laws that are good for us, such as these laws that pertain to the natural well being of man, be abolished? How about we use some logic? Are they not for our good? These laws keep us, if followed, from eating things that could potentially harm us. Like the Japanese blow fish. Don't try that one, you could die.

Sabbath? God's law here were never in question. So as it stands, they both still exist. To point back to your Gal 3:13 Christ took the "curse" of the law. Do you not know that the "curse" and the "law" are different? You see how Christ became a "curse".

Now, you might be able to see that Paul when he said that he was free from the law in that he was free from the curse of the law. Not that he was free to ignore the 10 commandments, but free from its penalty as long as he was under grace. If one continues in sin then he/she would fall from grace, putting them back under the law. Christ died for the penalty of the law in your stead, so that you would not suffer the penalty. We, true Christians, establish the law.

 

[winslow]

Ridiculous, How? You have changed the subject by changing the word riding to walking. I said nothing about going to synagogue (church). I did talk about the method of getting there. Riding your ass (driving a vehicle - modern day beast of burden) to synagogue is a clear violation of the 4th commandment. This is not legalism, it is sin if you claim obedience to such. Obedience and legalism are two different things. You claim legalism because you do not wish to submit to the law as you demand of others and claim obedience to. Notice I said claim. I did not even say anything about a sabbath day's journey. Is your church within a mile? How many of the people that go to your church live with in a mile of it? Are they and possibly you sinning to worship God? Do you see a problem? I do. So don't you blaspheme God as Paul said the Jews do in Romans 2:17-24 for context only quoting v 24: For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

It seems that you require a leash because you have no common sense. I put my pooch on a leash while I am gone to insure that she stays home and keep the neighbor from shooting her. She furthers restricts her limited freedom by going around the nearest fixed object till she can not do anything except lay down or sit. She can not even reach her water. That is not very smart to me. When she does this at night she has figured out if she barks she can get free because I will come out and unwind her. But she is a dog exhibiting great sense in other things. She is very smart. Who knows, if I keep leading her back around the object maybe one day she will figure it out. She is not very cooperative in being lead round and round the object to the additional freedom. She does like very much just to be free from the leash, the simple solution. You too can be free from the law if you will follow the leading of the Spirit. One will find the law a Christian is under in Romans 8:1, 2 and by following the leading of the Spirit will not induldge in the lust of the flesh (sin) Gal 5:18-21. Since you are insisting that we (grace pushers) have thrown out all sense of right and wrong (moral behavior). We don't license sin. I am speaking as a Christian not as a christian. A christian in my opinion is someone that attends church as only a social function. Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than being in a garage makes you a car.

You make a valid point with: That is not to say they were promoting their validity as a point of justification, just that they were a standard of conduct. My neighbor has no use for religion and seems to abide by moral standards. That is he doesn't seem to lie, steal, commit adultery, or murder. While my ten commandment keeping neighbor encourages me to steal. I just simply don't understand. So it appears to me that my non religious neighbor observes the law in the moral sense while my highly religious encourages violation of the moral law. It is no wonder the wicked have no use for God. Do not justification and behavior go together? Or does not justification and sanctification efffect each other and thus behavior? Apparently not in reality.

bugkiller

A car is not a beast of burden. I used that analogy because the Jews of the time even with their very legalistic laws (150 on the sabbath alone) did not consider it a violation to use Roman roads on the sabbath. It refutes the contention that we violate the sabbath by using such things today.

The second paragraph you posted seems little more than a personal attack with no valid reasonoings, therefore deserves no response.

I was reffering to the original post of the thread, that prior to as early as 20 years ago the moral code was regarded as a standard of conduct by all christians. Only recently has the notion that it has no bearing on christian conduct today. The original post had nothing to do with the sabbath in particular but the moral law in general,it seems that debate over the law always focuses towards it. Perhaps because that is the only 1 of the ten people have contention with. I have no idea about your neighbors or what they believe. My only response to your assertion comes with 2 scriptures:

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Mat 5:19 Therefore, whoever relaxes one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

 

[JohnRabbit]

A car is not a beast of burden. I used that analogy because the Jews of the time even with their very legalistic laws (150 on the sabbath alone) did not consider it a violation to use Roman roads on the sabbath. It refutes the contention that we violate the sabbath by using such things today.

The second paragraph you posted seems little more than a personal attack with no valid reasonoings, therefore deserves no response.

I was reffering to the original post of the thread, that prior to as early as 20 years ago the moral code was regarded as a standard of conduct by all christians. Only recently has the notion that it has no bearing on christian conduct today. The original post had nothing to do with the sabbath in particular but the moral law in general,it seems that debate over the law always focuses towards it. Perhaps because that is the only 1 of the ten people have contention with. I have no idea about your neighbor sor what they believe. My only response to your assertion comes with 2 scriptures:

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Mat 5:19 Therefore, whoever relaxes one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

well said, especially your second paragraph.

 

[JohnRabbit]

I will give him a good grade if he comes.

I don't understand why some like the strict pedagogues of gal 3:24?

I am a graceful teacher.

yes, i agree with you frogster,as far as a teacher goes, you're one of the best?

anywho,it is clear that paul is talking about the mosaic law in gal 3. note the references to "works of the law" (from the greek ergon nomos) and his reference to the "book of the law" (you know, the part of the law that moses wrote, hence, mosaic law. ex 24:5,7)

ergon:
(a primary but obsolete word; to work); toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication an act:—deed, doing, labour, work.

nomos:
(to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), generally (regulation), specifically (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle):—law.

now, let's back up from gal 3:24 to gal 3:19,

Galatians 3:19 ( NKJV ) 19What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.

what purpose did the law serve? he actually answers this question in verse 24, but notice that the law was added because of transgressions. but what law or laws were being transgressed?

(but of course it couldn't have been the ten comandments)

remember?

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

since the law was added because of transgressions or sin, there had to be a law that existed so that "the law" could be addded!

just too bad that we don't know what law or laws that was being transgressed, a pure shame.

well, we do know it wasn't the mosaic law.

also notice that "the law" was added until! until what?
...till the Seed should come!

so, this tells us that the law was to be added but that it would have a definite duration!

that's where:

Galatians 3:23-25 ( NKJV ) 23But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

comes into play.

the mosaic law fullfiled it purpose, came 430 years after abraham and taught the COI the habit of obedience.
but verse 25 says that we are no longer under a tutor, why?

because:

Daniel 9:27 ( NKJV ) 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week (and Christ literaly died on wednesday)
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

so, it's not that some like the strict pedagogue, rather, some understand what its purpose was.

mosaic law, and not the ten commandments, was added because of gal 3:19, and served its purpose per gal 3:24!

 

[Deut 5:29]

I would think twice Who I was calling The Lawless One. I believe that Jesus did away with the law by nailing it to the cross.

Now about those disciples? You just wouldn't be referring to posters on this site would you? And I think you are accusing those posters of being disciples of satan.

So why don't you just come right out and identify exactly who you are talking about? I think you are flaming. So you want to come clean?

bugkiller

Ok, but no mater how many times I think about it the answer is still the same.
You can believe it if you want but it's still not true.
Yes some do frequent this site.
I'm not sure, do I detect a twinge of guilt in there? And as far as flaming goes I think you're a flaming too.

 

[VictorC]

anywho,it is clear that paul is talking about the mosaic law in gal 3. note the references to "works of the law" (from the greek ergon nomos) and his reference to the "book of the law" (you know, the part of the law that moses wrote, hence, mosaic law. ex 24:5,7)

now, let's back up from gal 3:24 to gal 3:19,

Galatians 3:19 ( NKJV ) 19What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.

what purpose did the law serve? he actually answers this question in verse 24, but notice that the law was added because of transgressions. but what law or laws were being transgressed?

The meaning of "added because of transgressions" simply means that the law was added to define transgressions that would violate it, and those transgressions existed already.

(but of course it couldn't have been the ten comandments)

That is inconsistent, as the ten commandments was the covenant that was given through Moses, at the same time Moses received God's instructions that he later codified in the book of the law. The content of each have the same origin of time, as Moses testified in Deuteronomy 4:

11 "Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
12 "And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice.
13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
14 "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.​

remember?

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

since the law was added because of transgressions or sin, there had to be a law that existed so that "the law" could be addded!

That comes from rendering "added because of transgressions or sin" from an incomplete definition of sin equating the two. If you're going to use Romans as a guide, you should also include Romans 5:13:

For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

Sin existed before the law did, showing that sin and transgressions to a codified law are separate entities.

just too bad that we don't know what law or laws that was being transgressed, a pure shame.

well, we do know it wasn't the mosaic law.

That simply means that there was no transgression of law prior to the Mosaic covenant, since there was no law mediated through Moses before Moses came onto the historical scene.

also notice that "the law" was added until! until what?
...till the Seed should come!

so, this tells us that the law was to be added but that it would have a definite duration!

that's where:

Galatians 3:23-25 ( NKJV ) 23But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

comes into play.

the mosaic law fullfiled it purpose, came 430 years after abraham and taught the COI the habit of obedience.
but verse 25 says that we are no longer under a tutor, why?

You were doing fine until you decided to ask "why". Being kept under the law for a period of time you acknowledge was temporal also acknowledges that once faith in our Redeemer came, that ownership conveyed by "kept under the law" came to an end once the ownership of the purchased possession (us) was transferred via redemption. Galatians 4 addresses that as the reason Jesus Christ came:

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.​

Redemption places being under the law in the past tense, and that is the reason that we are no longer under the tutelage of the law.

because:

Daniel 9:27 ( NKJV ) 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week (and Christ literaly died on wednesday)
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

I am among the minority who agrees that the crucifixion was on a Wednesday, followed by the High Sabbath on Thursday, Mary buying embalming spices on Friday, and the second sabbath of the week happening on Saturday. However, Daniel 9:27 refers to the midst of a shabuwa, dividing the heptad of "seven" we commonly regard as "years", and it isn't a reference to a literal week. I don't think Daniel 9:27 is germane, and you're making a point from this verse that it doesn't really support.

mosaic law, and not the ten commandments, was added because of gal 3:19, and served its purpose per gal 3:24!

Here you do nothing short of displaying an open prejudice against the Mosaic covenant. The ten commandments was every bit as much Mosaic law as the book of the law was. The tables of stone was the covenant handed to Moses on Mount Sinai, and the book of the law was the same covenant Moses wrote at Horeb, from orally dictated instructions directly from God. Galatians addresses the ten commandments itself in Galatians 4:

21 ¶ Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar----
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children----
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband."
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."​

Here we have Paul's instruction to cast off the bondwoman, which he defines as the covenant from Mount Sinai: "the one from Mount Sinai". There was only one covenant that had Mount Sinai as its origin. Scroll back up in this post and review the testimony Moses gave us from Deuteronomy 4 for the proper noun naming the covenant from Mount Sinai - the Ten Commandments, written on tables of stone.

That is what Galatians is addressing with the same impact as the book of the law. The law was indivisible, and we are redeemed from the law as a unit that includes the covenant from Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments.

 

[VictorC]

I was reffering to the original post of the thread, that prior to as early as 20 years ago the moral code was regarded as a standard of conduct by all christians. Only recently has the notion that it has no bearing on christian conduct today. The original post had nothing to do with the sabbath in particular but the moral law in general,it seems that debate over the law always focuses towards it. Perhaps because that is the only 1 of the ten people have contention with. I have no idea about your neighbors or what they believe.

What "moral code" are you referring to?
The ten commandments was a legally binding covenant, the same covenant that Christianity affirms we have been delivered from (review Romans 7:6-7, which quotes "You shall not covet" found only in Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 to identify the ten commandments as the law we've been delivered from). It was not simply a "moral code" we contend with only 10% of, but rather the entire covenant as a unit.

Your OP addressed the ramblings of commentary based on an out-of-context fixation on Romans 3:31, which some of the members here have concluded with me as pointless after I wrote post #23:

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.

Since this post, no one has returned to Romans 3:31 for support that simply isn't there.

My only response to your assertion comes with 2 scriptures:

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Why didn't you include the previous verse, Romans 2:12?

"For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law..."​

This was the condition of mankind prior to the Gospel, which Romans 2 presents to show the need both Jew and Gentile before it makes a transition to show the solution to the common problem of universal condemnation in the next chapter.

Mat 5:19 Therefore, whoever relaxes one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

This was stated during the tenure of the first covenant, and is consistent with its requirements of compliance. It is not germane to demand compliance to the first covenant after the death of the Testator redeemed our transgressions under it, as shown in Hebrews 9:15:

15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.​

You don't find compliance to the first covenant mediated by Moses mandated as a requisite for eternal life in the new covenant accepted by Christianity.

 

[Frogster]

Start with one of the best known and respected, FF Bruce, then I will give you more. Bruce says..


Gal 3:13, where Christ took the whole curse of the law, he says the obvious. "Paul saw that as law abrogation."

Hello Frogster,

Been awhile since I have been out here. I see that your still posting and arguing that the law has been done away with. I guess a frog does bump his butt when he jumps.... LOL... Pardon the pun.

RIB-IT

You have even gone so far as to quote FF Bruce. Well that just means there are two that bought into that erroneous argument. Even contradicts what you stated. Lets see:

You stated, "Soooo? Unsaved are bound in law and flesh, most know that. What is yeeeer point?" you can find that http//www.christianforums.com/t7484516-6/

Point is, you even know the law exist! But which ones?

I saw your question posted to JohnRabbit about the food laws. Question! Why would laws that are good for us, such as these laws that pertain to the natural well being of man, be abolished? How about we use some logic? Are they not for our good? These laws keep us, if followed, from eating things that could potentially harm us. Like the Japanese blow fish. Don't try that one, you could die.

Sabbath? God's law here were never in question. So as it stands, they both still exist. To point back to your Gal 3:13 Christ took the "curse" of the law. Do you not know that the "curse" and the "law" are different? You see how Christ became a "curse".

Now, you might be able to see that Paul when he said that he was free from the law in that he was free from the curse of the law. Not that he was free to ignore the 10 commandments, but free from its penalty as long as he was under grace. If one continues in sin then he/she would fall from grace, putting them back under the law. Christ died for the penalty of the law in your stead, so that you would not suffer the penalty. We, true Christians, establish the law.

Hi YO!

Jesus took the curse to the tree. Pretty simple to me to understand. Read Deut 27:26, Gal 3:10, Gal 5:3, James 2:10.

Now..tell me why Paul did not want the law reinstated for the Galatians?

Why would he be a transgressor, if he did? Wow a transgressor..hmmm..for rebuilding the Judaistic system..hmmm

Just a simple answer please.

Gal 2:18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.

Teacher frogster will give student Yo a hint.

Notice where they were imprisoned up in sin, and what dominion it was.


Gal 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No one did, but "The Lawless One" and his disciples keep repeating that damnable lie.

What about these disciples of Moses?

John 8:44 "Ye out of a father, the Devil are, and the desires of the father of ye, ye are willing to be doing.
That one a man-killer was from beginning and in the truth not has stood, that not is truth in him.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of the tormenting of Them is ascending into Ages to-Ages.......... [Luke 16:24,26]

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

 

[Frogster]

A car is not a beast of burden. I used that analogy because the Jews of the time even with their very legalistic laws (150 on the sabbath alone) did not consider it a violation to use Roman roads on the sabbath. It refutes the contention that we violate the sabbath by using such things today.

The second paragraph you posted seems little more than a personal attack with no valid reasonoings, therefore deserves no response.

I was reffering to the original post of the thread, that prior to as early as 20 years ago the moral code was regarded as a standard of conduct by all christians. Only recently has the notion that it has no bearing on christian conduct today. The original post had nothing to do with the sabbath in particular but the moral law in general,it seems that debate over the law always focuses towards it. Perhaps because that is the only 1 of the ten people have contention with. I have no idea about your neighbors or what they believe. My only response to your assertion comes with 2 scriptures:

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

As far as these 2 verses. Please don't prooftext part of a polemic diatribe, where Paul was just proving all guilty, UNTIL JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, NOT LAW, to act as though the law is our righteousness.

Why did Paul not want the "standard" of the mosaic law for the Galatians?

Why did he says a righteousness APART from the law in Ropmans 3:21? And in Rom 9 and 10?

Soooo..is our rightousness faith or law?

Mat 5:19 Therefore, whoever relaxes one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Frogster]

yes, i agree with you frogster,as far as a teacher goes, you're one of the best?

anywho,it is clear that paul is talking about the mosaic law in gal 3. note the references to "works of the law" (from the greek ergon nomos) and his reference to the "book of the law" (you know, the part of the law that moses wrote, hence, mosaic law. ex 24:5,7)

ergon:
(a primary but obsolete word; to work); toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication an act:—deed, doing, labour, work.

nomos:
(to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), generally (regulation), specifically (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle):—law.

now, let's back up from gal 3:24 to gal 3:19,

Galatians 3:19 ( NKJV ) 19What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.

what purpose did the law serve? he actually answers this question in verse 24, but notice that the law was added because of transgressions. but what law or laws were being transgressed?

(but of course it couldn't have been the ten comandments)

remember?

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

since the law was added because of transgressions or sin, there had to be a law that existed so that "the law" could be addded!

just too bad that we don't know what law or laws that was being transgressed, a pure shame.

well, we do know it wasn't the mosaic law.

also notice that "the law" was added until! until what?
...till the Seed should come!

so, this tells us that the law was to be added but that it would have a definite duration!

that's where:

Galatians 3:23-25 ( NKJV ) 23But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

comes into play.

the mosaic law fullfiled it purpose, came 430 years after abraham and taught the COI the habit of obedience.
but verse 25 says that we are no longer under a tutor, why?

because:

Daniel 9:27 ( NKJV ) 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week (and Christ literaly died on wednesday)
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

so, it's not that some like the strict pedagogue, rather, some understand what its purpose was.

mosaic law, and not the ten commandments, was added because of gal 3:19, and served its purpose per gal 3:24!

wow..I could have saved you alot of typing!

Ok..simple question for you.

Are you saying Jesus just took the curse of food laws to the tree?

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—

oh..and one more thing student Rabbit.

Notice how the law had to be taken out of the way, for the promise of the spirit to come. Note the ..SO THAT..


14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

 

[Frogster]

What about these disciples of Moses?

John 8:44 "Ye out of a father, the Devil are, and the desires of the father of ye, ye are willing to be doing.
That one a man-killer was from beginning and in the truth not has stood, that not is truth in him.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of the tormenting of Them is ascending into Ages to-Ages.......... [Luke 16:24,26]

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

hehehe..true...they were od de debil..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

wow..I could have saved you alot of typing!

.

You could have saved me a lot of scrolling down by not quoting the whole post there froggy

 

[winslow]

wow..I could have saved you alot of typing!

Actually everyone here could have saved themselves a lot of typing by answering the original question posted instead of rehashing the same old arguments.

The question I was trying to ask was when did churches stop teaching that the ten commandments were not a standard of conduct for the born again christian. I was raised a congegationalist, had friends of many different faiths. Every church at that time (in the 60's) were at the time teaching that the ten commandments were a standard of christian conduct.
As with so many people I stopped attending church in the later teen years. When I started attending church in the 80's a lot of churches had started this new notion that the ten commandments are no longer a standard of christian conduct.
It is under this context that I asked who did away with the law. Perhaps I should have said when but believe it would have been similarly misinterpreted. That is why I posted the commentators comments on Romans 3:31. The ten commandments historically until fairly recently have been upheld as a valid code of christian conduct.There are many more examples of other verses I could have used but the ones I posted should validate my point.
So withoout any more of the same old sabbath day, freast day abrogation arguments which have nothing to do with the question I asked let me restate my original question for clarity.

When did christian churches stop teaching that the ten commandments were a christian code of conduct?