Who did away with the law?

[JohnRabbit]

You took 45 minutes to research the answer, and the answer you provided was wrong.

so you say VictorC.

did the Christ die so that we wouldn't have to keep the ten commandments?

 

[YosemiteSam]

It has been pointed out several times that this is both an incomplete definition of sin according to the same epistle written by the same author you got this partial definition from, and that because it refers to the specific law mediated by Moses consistent to how Paul used it to refer to the law that came 430 years after Abraham received the promise that is the basis of our salvation.

You're faced with an analysis that posits that there was no such thing as sin prior to Moses. This is the inevitable result of your definition opined in error.

I was just interested in the discussion. Rather you agreed or not. You could have come back with an explanation of your thoughts regarding the questions.

Dont forget.

You claim that you believe the bible, so do I. You claim that you go by scriptures, so do I. This is a discussion forum, and I did not claim you wrong, I said we don't agree. That's fine. I didn't claim you to be wrong, and I surely doubt you are qualified to claim me to be in error.

 

[VictorC]

I was just interested in the discussion. Rather you agreed or not. You could have come back with an explanation of your thoughts regarding the questions.

Dont forget.

You claim that you believe the bible, so do I. You claim that you go by scriptures, so do I. This is a discussion forum, and I did not claim you wrong, I said we don't agree. That's fine. I didn't claim you to be wrong, and I surely doubt you are qualified to claim me to be in error.

Your contention is that all unrighteousness isn't sin, you contend that sin doesn't also transgress the law, and you can't reconcile your limited definition of sin to state "sin was the transgression of the law" to include sin that existed before the law did.

Naturally I disagree with your contention that mandates the application of the law before the time it existed, because it is an error that you repeat over and over like a broken record. We know from the Biblical record that sin originated in mankind with Adam, about 2500 years before the documented origin of the law mediated by Moses, which is "the" law your reference points to.

 

[VictorC]

so you say VictorC.

That isn't exactly true, now is it?

Paul explained himself simply.
Hentenza explained the application of Paul's marriage analogy clearly.
I also explained Paul's application rather clearly:

According to the marriage analogy inserted into this text in verses 2 and 3, the husband has to die before the wife is free to marry another husband. Using that example, verse 4 redefines the terms that the author presented so that it applies our relationship with the law and with Jesus Christ:

Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another----to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.​

The marriage analogy is presented first, and then the application of the analogy is given in the tenor of "likewise...". The first husband was the law, from which we need to be separated from before we can become married to another, Who is Jesus Christ.

The first half of Romans 7 is prefaced with the qualification "for I speak to those who know the law", and the narrative you're having so much trouble with is sandwiched between these two antithetical points made by the author:

• the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives - 7:1
• But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by - 7:6

The example of marriage was inserted between these to help lead the reader into the realization that one is bound (held, under dominion) to either the law or to Jesus Christ. It is not possible to belong to both, and redemption from the ownership of the law is a common theme most sabbatarians don't have a grasp of.

Instead of following the flow of a narrative written by the author, you jump ahead and practice the same method of "line upon line, precept upon precept" that Isaiah 28:13 warns us to be a eisegetical trap and snare. No doubt that's why you grasp at baptism, which is foreign to Romans 7.

Verse 4 defines the first husband who died as our relationship with the law that we have been delivered from.

did the Christ die so that we wouldn't have to keep the ten commandments?

That was also answered in the post that contained a simple question it took you 45 minutes to provide the wrong answer to:

Romans 7 offers no indication that anyone kept the law, and this is affirmed later in the epistle in Romans 11:32. Romans 7:6 is clear when it states that the law kept the recipients God redeemed in the past tense.

Your question about keeping the covenant from Mount Sinai becomes senseless once you recognize that you don't comply with the covenant from Mount Sinai, which was God's final disposition of its recipients in Romans 11:32: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all". There is no appeal against God's final determination, and He has committed all to disobedience to the first covenant as a condition to extend His mercy to all.

Don't forget that Moses stated the covenant from Mount Sinai was the ten commandments in Deuteronomy 4:11-13.

 

[Cribstyl]

am i?

what you have highlighted in rom 7:1-3 is what i said!

yes, my statement was that she was free from the penalty of adultery.

why? because the husband died!

now, tell me how the woman is not free from the penalty of adultery.

the marriage contract was fulfilled! remember? till death do us part!

yes, so she is free to marry another!

released from the law does not mean she is free from keeping the law.

You're confusing the scenarios......
The text say she is free from that law ("marriage covenant"), so it's pointless to raise freedom from adultery as an issue if she free from the marriage.
Rom 7:3So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

case in point, the woman is free to marry another. so, if she does, then she is bound by the marriage law again!

do you think when you marry the Lamb of the living God that you will be able to go thereafter and practice [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]oism?

get real!

you are not released from keeping the commandments, but by the grace of God, you are released from its penalty!

how does one die to the law?

First you have to be married to it. You're not acknowledging a marriage to the law and a death to end that marriage in those text
Rom 7:4 changes the scenario from a man and a woman, to YOU being in a marriage covenant with THE LAW. The text says YOU're dead to the law, because of Christ and you should go marry another.

 

[JohnRabbit]

You're confusing the scenarios......
The text say she is free from that law ("marriage covenant"), so it's pointless to raise freedom from adultery as an issue if she free from the marriage.
Rom 7:3So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.



First you have to be married to it. You're not acknowledging a marriage to the law and a death to end that marriage in those text
Rom 7:4 changes the scenario from a man and a woman, to YOU being in a marriage covenant with THE LAW. The text says YOU're dead to the law, because of Christ and you should go marry another.

you should highlight the next words of the verse.

... so that she is no adulteress

the only way for that to happen is if she trangress the law, therefore sinning.

you're right, i'm not acknowledging no marriage to the law, that's what you are doing.

it is sin that is the problem not the law rom 7:7!

go back and read my post #404.

the text does say that YOU'RE dead to the law. so, how do you conclude that the law died in this scenario?

the old covenant was a marriage relationship, just like the new covenant will be.

at mt. sinai the COI didn't marry the law, they married the Lord. however, the COI comitted adultery. in other words they did exactly what roman 7:3 describes.

you won't find anywhere in rom 7 that the law died. but you do find in verse 25 that paul says he serves the law of God.

 

[Cribstyl]

@ JohnnRabbit


Jhn 1:17For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ


Why does it seem that you want us to reject grace and truth and get under the law?

 

[JohnRabbit]

@ JohnnRabbit


Jhn 1:17For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ


Why does it seem that you want us to reject grace and truth and get under the law?

that's your perception, not mine. i said nothing about rejecting grace, for some reason you brought that up.

but i'd still like for you to show me where in rom 7 that it says the law died.

 

[bugkiller]

so you say VictorC.

did the Christ die so that we wouldn't have to keep the ten commandments?

Christ did not die so we could keep the ten commandments either.

bugkiller

 

[JohnRabbit]

Christ did not die so we could keep the ten commandments either.

bugkiller

once again, thanks for your contribution.

 

[Cribstyl]

you should highlight the next words of the verse.

... so that she is no adulteress

the only way for that to happen is if she trangress the law, therefore sinning.

Wrong, she's free from the law of marriage, and cannot be an adulteress.... but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress,

Your original argument was..... the law lost it's claim as stated in verse 3 which states that the "husband died" and that's what freed the wife from the penalty of adultery.

I'm done with going back and forth on this issue.

you're right, i'm not acknowledging no marriage to the law, that's what you are doing.

it is sin that is the problem not the law rom 7:7!

go back and read my post #404.

the text does say that YOU'RE dead to the law. so, how do you conclude that the law died in this scenario?

the old covenant was a marriage relationship, just like the new covenant will be.


at mt. sinai the COI didn't marry the law, they married the Lord. however, the COI comitted adultery. in other words they did exactly what roman 7:3 describes.

you won't find anywhere in rom 7 that the law died. but you do find in verse 25 that paul says he serves the law of God.

I never said the law died... The fact that you wont acknowledge the marriage and see YOU and THE LAW in a covenant relationship is adding confusion.
The text said you died not that the law died. If one party dies the covenant is broken as illustrated in Rom7:1-3, that's why adultery is not an issue after one party dies.

Rom 7:6But 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.

Dont get it twisted, We're to serve God in newness of spirit not the law.
God is the one who gave Israel a convenant with the law, that covenant serve until Jesus died, we're now the bride of Christ.

 

[bugkiller]

you should highlight the next words of the verse.

... so that she is no adulteress

the only way for that to happen is if she trangress the law, therefore sinning.

you're right, i'm not acknowledging no marriage to the law, that's what you are doing.

it is sin that is the problem not the law rom 7:7!

go back and read my post #404.

the text does say that YOU'RE dead to the law. so, how do you conclude that the law died in this scenario?

the old covenant was a marriage relationship, just like the new covenant will be.

at mt. sinai the COI didn't marry the law, they married the Lord. however, the COI comitted adultery. in other words they did exactly what roman 7:3 describes.

you won't find anywhere in rom 7 that the law died. but you do find in verse 25 that paul says he serves the law of God.

Amazing! How is she violating the law by marring another? The husband (law) is dead! You can say that the COI did not marry the law all you want. It has no effect on the illustration Paul uses. The illustration does not need to be based on historical facts to be vaild. That is not a purpose of an illustration.

bugkiller

 

[Deut 5:29]

Christ did not die so we could keep the ten commandments either.

bugkiller

Actually He did, and much more.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Wrong, she's free from the law of marriage, and cannot be an adulteress.... but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress,

Your original argument was..... the law lost it's claim as stated in verse 3 which states that the "husband died" and that's what freed the wife from the penalty of adultery.

I'm done with going back and forth on this issue.
I never said the law died... The fact that you wont acknowlede the marriage and see YOU and THE LAW in a covenant relationship
The text said you died not that the law died. If one party dies the covenant is broken as illustrated in Rom7:1-3, that's why adultery is not an issue after one party dies.

Rom 7:6But 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.

ok

the law is Holy, just, and good verse 12

is the law sin? verse 7

the law is spiritual verse 14

i had not known sin but for the law verse 7

with the mind i myself serve the law of God verse 25

and you want to do away with God's law, amazing!

 

[JohnRabbit]

Amazing! How is she violating the law by marring another? The husband (law) is dead! You can say that the COI did not marry the law all you want. It has no effect on the illustration Paul uses. The illustration does not need to be based on historical facts to be vaild. That is not a purpose of an illustration.

bugkiller

i guess you didn't notice the "if" in verse 3!

 

[bugkiller]

Actually He did, and much more.

Then explain Gal 5:4. What is the purpose of law, if it now causes Chirst to be ineffective, IOW nulifies redemption? The law can and does not provide life. It is the ministration of death II Cor 3:7.

bugkiller

 

[Frogster]

What is it that holds captive? the law?

Exactly! Yo..gets an A+ today!

Look...imprisoned under law..captive. What wonderful adjectives.


Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.

 

[VictorC]

the text does say that YOU'RE dead to the law. so, how do you conclude that the law died in this scenario?

You have opined in agreement with us that the first husband was to die before the woman was free to marry another, but you stop short when you see Romans 7:4 leveraging the marriage analogy to define the woman as God's redeemed and the first husband as the law we have been delivered from.

the old covenant was a marriage relationship, just like the new covenant will be.

Passages abound that describe God's husbandry to the children of Israel apart from the covenant from Mount Sinai, and this same imagery exists in the new covenant as well. That isn't the whole picture, however, and Galatians 4:4-7 describes God as our Father with us His adopted children.

The covenant from Mount Sinai was defined in concrete terms as the ten commandments that was agreed upon (Exodus 19:8) along with the book of the law (Exodus 24:7).

at mt. sinai the COI didn't marry the law, they married the Lord.

Exactly. The first covenant wasn't a marriage relationship; the first covenant was the law, and not God.

you won't find anywhere in rom 7 that the law died.

You're already on record observing that the first husband died.

 

[98cwitr]

Doesnt Pauline doctrine seem to suggest that we are not under the Law anymore...Matthew 5 seems to suggest it's still valid and we should follow it. (oh not this again! Now Im confused once more regarding this topic!)

 

[VictorC]

Actually He did, and much more.

No, as God determined everyone disobedient as a condition to extend His mercy to us (Romans 11:32), and His promise "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" is applied to His adopted children in the continuing present tense.