Gal 4 "under the Law" vs "under Grace" in Romans 6 and not sinning

[disciple1]

I love God, so I practice obedience to His law. I have faith in God that He knows how I should live, so I practice obedience to His law. The law is of the Spirit and God sent His Spirit to lead us in obedience to His law, so I practice obedience to His law. I abide in Christ, so I practice obedience to his law and practice walking as he walked. God sent His Son to die to save me from lawlessness, so I practice obedience to His law. The Bible speaks strongly against lawlessness, so I practice obedience to his law. The Bible speaks strongly against sin, so I practice obedience to His law. Those who practice righteousness are born of God, so I practice obedience to His law. Throughout the Bible God wants His chosen people to obey His law, and I am a member of God's chosen people through faith in Messiah, so I practice obedience to His law. I want to live abundantly and be someone whom God can bless, so I practice obedience to His law. I love the law and delight in it, as Paul and David did, so I practice obedience to the law. The Bible says to do what is holy, righteous, and good, so I practice obedience to His law. I am God's representative to the nations, so I practice obedience to His law. I am a follower of God, so I practice obedience to His law.



Helping others is not distinct from God's law because it instructs us to help others.

So you want to be under law even though it will only get you death and you'll have god angry with you.
Romans chapter 4 verses 13-15
It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

 

[Soyeong]

So you want to be under law even though it will only get you death and you'll have god angry with you.

Does it really make sense to you that God will only be angry with the people who seek to obey what He has commanded by faith and that the people who practice disobedience to His commands will escape his wrath? Throughout the Bible, God wanted obedience from His people, not disobedience, so you've got it completely switched around. The law was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 10:13), not to bring about our death. It is disobedience to God that brings about death. As I mentioned in post #4, Paul talked about a number of types of laws, so the law that we are not under is the law of sin and death, which is the opposite of God's law.

Romans chapter 4 verses 13-15
It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

I did not list inheriting the promise as one of my reasons for practicing obedience to God's law. The law was never given for that reason.

 

[disciple1]

Does it really make sense to you that God will only be angry with the people who seek to obey what He has commanded by faith and that the people who practice disobedience to His commands will escape his wrath? Throughout the Bible, God wanted obedience from His people, not disobedience, so you've got it completely switched around. The law was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 10:13), not to bring about our death. It is disobedience to God that brings about death. As I mentioned in post #4, Paul talked about a number of types of laws, so the law that we are not under is the law of sin and death, which is the opposite of God's law.



I did not list inheriting the promise as one of my reasons for practicing obedience to God's law. The law was never given for that reason.

Now I under stand what your doing, seems very foolish to me though, why not take the free gift god is offering you, instead of throwing away Christ.

 

[Soyeong]

Now I under stand what your doing, seems very foolish to me though, why not take the free gift god is offering you, instead of throwing away Christ.

Salvation is from sin and sin is the transgression of God's law, so our salvation is from transgressing God's law for the purpose of coming into obedience to it. We have been saved by grace through faith, not by doing good works, but for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:8-10) and God's law equips us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Christ came to fulfill the law by teaching how to correctly obey it and by giving us a perfect example to follow, and we are told to obey his commands, walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6), and to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), and it is accepting his free gift that enables us to do so by grace through faith and meet the righteous requirement of the law (Romans 8:4), so going back under slavery to sin and disobedience to the law is what would be spitting on his free gift.

 

[disciple1]

Salvation is from sin and sin is the transgression of God's law, so our salvation is from transgressing God's law for the purpose of coming into obedience to it. We have been saved by grace through faith, not by doing good works, but for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:8-10) and God's law equips us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Christ came to fulfill the law by teaching how to correctly obey it and by giving us a perfect example to follow, and we are told to obey his commands, walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6), and to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), and it is accepting his free gift that enables us to do so by grace through faith and meet the righteous requirement of the law (Romans 8:4), so going back under slavery to sin and disobedience to the law is what would be spitting on his free gift.

No your saying to god I don't need Jesus, I hope I never get that foolish.

 

[Soyeong]

No your saying to god I don't need Jesus, I hope I never get that foolish.

I need Jesus and I have never said otherwise. I can't be made to be like him in his obedience to the law through my own effort, but only by grace through faith.

 

[disciple1]

I need Jesus and I have never said otherwise. I can't be made to be like him in his obedience to the law through my own effort, but only by grace through faith.

Are you misunderstanding the whole bible, or just part of it.
Romans chapter 9 verses 30-Romans chapter 10 verse 4
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame. Brothers my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are Zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own the did not submit to God's righteousness, Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you misunderstanding the whole bible, or just part of it.

It is straightforward that followers of God should follow His commands, and as a follower of God, you are actually arguing against following His commands, so you should really consider whether it you who have misunderstood the whole Bible. Throughout the Bible God has always wanted His people to turn from their ways and obey His commands.

Romans chapter 9 verses 30-Romans chapter 10 verse 4
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame. Brothers my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are Zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own the did not submit to God's righteousness, Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

We are the pursue the law by faith as it was always intended, for the righteous shall live by faith, but they were pursuing the law as if righteousness were by works, which is a legalistic perversion of God's law. Christ is the goal of the law because it is all about him and he is the one who can pay our penalty for transgressing the law and cause us to be able to keep it by grace through faith. Saying that Christ brought an end to God's law is like saying that he brought an end to God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness. Furthermore, if Paul said that Christ brought an end to the law, then according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, Paul and/or Jesus were false prophets, so you should reconsider your interpretation. Paul said that our faith in Messiah does not abolish the law, but rather it upholds the law (Romans 3:31), so clearly Messiah did not bring about an end to the law, but rather he is the goal of the law.

 

[disciple1]

We are the pursue the law by faith as it was always intended, for the righteous shall live by faith, but they were pursuing the law as if righteousness were by works, which is a legalistic perversion of God's law. Christ is the goal of the law because it is all about him and he is the one who can pay our penalty for transgressing the law and cause us to be able to keep it by grace through faith. Saying that Christ brought an end to God's law is like saying that he brought an end to God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness. Furthermore, if Paul said that Christ brought an end to the law, then according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, Paul and/or Jesus were false prophets, so you should reconsider your interpretation. Paul said that our faith in Messiah does not abolish the law, but rather it upholds the law (Romans 3:31), so clearly Messiah did not bring about an end to the law, but rather he is the goal of the law.

You're putting yourself in prison for no good reason look at these verses
Galatians chapter 3 verse 24,25,23 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith now that faith has come we are no longer under the supervision of the law before this faith came we were held prisoner's by the law locked up until faith should be revealed.

 

[bugkiller]

The term "under the LAW" in Gal 4 -- means under the obligation of the ceremonial law apart from faith.

Rom 9
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

1 John 3:4 - "SIN IS transgression of the LAW" both in OT and also by NT standards

The above passages don't support the idea of ceremonial or a particular part of the law. I'd like to know where you get your idea from.

So then in Rom 6 Paul speaks about the obligation not to SIN - even though not "under the law" -- not under the condemnation of the LAW.

Rom 6
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered

1 john 2:1 "these things I write to you that you sin NOT"

The Covenant at Sinai with Israel included
"Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18

You forget that sin was before the law in Rom 5:13. So sin really has nothing to do with the law. The law didn't create sin.

And 40 years later Moses reminds them --
"Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5

Christ continues to affirm them in Matt 22 , pre-cross - the Law of Moses upheld.

So then why is Paul associating Sinai with the old covenant in Gal 4?

Because the ceremonial law is no longer in effect.

Again how do you arrive at the idea only part of the law was done away with? You can't cling to your Mat 5:17-18 passage and say part of the law was done away with.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" as compared to the ceremonial laws such as circumcision - as we see in this example from 1Cor 7:19

Circumcision isn't ceremonial. The rite of circumcision could be said to be ceremonial. If a Jewish male isn't circumcised he is to be treated as a gentile.

notice how Christ upholds what "Mpses said" in Mark 7 calling it "The WORD of GOD"

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

What are you calling the commandments of men? Is it worshipping on Sunday? The commandments of men are clearly pointed out in v 8. Nothing there about worship. Verse 9 is about the type of things mentioned in v 8 and not worship. Verse 11 shows more about these traditions and oral laws which say nothing about worship. Please pay attention to the bolded blue above.

John 14:15 "IF you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments"

Would you care to identify these commandments we're to keep if we love Jesus?

"Love ME and KEEP My Commandments" Ex 20:6 -- from the TEN Commandments.

So are you trying to say Jesus is quoting Ex 20:6? If so why is it that you don't keep the 4th as written?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

According to Deuteronomy 4:2, is it a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so if you try to subtract the ceremonial laws, then you are sinning. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, anyone who says not to obey any of God's laws, which includes ceremonial laws, is a false prophet. On top of that, according to 1 Peter 1:14-16, we are told to have a holy conduct, which inherently refers to ceremonial laws.

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Paul spoke about the law of God (Romans 3:31), the law of sin (Romans 7:23-25), the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), the law of the Spirit of life (Romans 8:2), the law of faith (Romans 3:27), the law of righteousness (Romans 9:31), and the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21), so in order to correctly understand what law we are not under in Romans 6:14, we need to know which law he was talking about. There is something about the law that we are not under which relates to sin having no dominion over us, so it is straightforward that the law that we are not under is the law of sin, which is the opposite of the law of God. If Paul had been meaning that we are not under the law of God because we are not under sin, then he would have been equating the law of God with sin, but he made it clear that the law of God was not sin (Romans 7:7), and as you already quoted, sin is in fact the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).

What is the law of sin?

bugkiller

 

[Soyeong]

What is the law of sin?

bugkiller

See Romans 7.

 

[bugkiller]

According to Deuteronomy 4:2, is it a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so if you try to subtract the ceremonial laws, then you are sinning. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, anyone who says not to obey any of God's laws, which includes ceremonial laws, is a false prophet. On top of that, according to 1 Peter 1:14-16, we are told to have a holy conduct, which inherently refers to ceremonial laws.

Then God sins. For God said through His prophet Jeremiah -

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And Jesus must also sin because He said -

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Two other Gospel writers record essentially the same thing. The words are translated slightly differently.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

See Romans 7.

I know the chapter well. To what are you referring?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

According to Deuteronomy 4:2, is it a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so if you try to subtract the ceremonial laws, then you are sinning. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, anyone who says not to obey any of God's laws, which includes ceremonial laws, is a false prophet. On top of that, according to 1 Peter 1:14-16, we are told to have a holy conduct, which inherently refers to ceremonial laws.

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Paul spoke about the law of God (Romans 3:31), the law of sin (Romans 7:23-25), the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), the law of the Spirit of life (Romans 8:2), the law of faith (Romans 3:27), the law of righteousness (Romans 9:31), and the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21), so in order to correctly understand what law we are not under in Romans 6:14, we need to know which law he was talking about. There is something about the law that we are not under which relates to sin having no dominion over us, so it is straightforward that the law that we are not under is the law of sin, which is the opposite of the law of God. If Paul had been meaning that we are not under the law of God because we are not under sin, then he would have been equating the law of God with sin, but he made it clear that the law of God was not sin (Romans 7:7), and as you already quoted, sin is in fact the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).

Romans 6:8-9 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

Faith in Messiah frees us from bondage to sin and allows us to overcome death, so we are no longer under the law of sin and death, but under grace. Strong's defines "grace" as "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" so it is by God's grace through faith that we are able to obey His will, which is instructed in His law.

1 John 2:4-6 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Another very lovely passage. My guess is that you don't love Jesus, but then maybe you mean God the Father when you refer to the commandments. Personally I understand you and John to be talking about different commandments.

These verses associate keeping Messiah's commands with walking as he walked, he it walked in perfect obedience to the law. Messiah didn't preach one thing and live differently, but rather he practiced what he preached and preached what he practiced. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not in disagreement with each other, so the law of Messiah is the same as the law of the Spirit, which is the same as the law of God, which He gave to Moses.

The above passage isn't about keeping the law. And you preach something you refuse to do.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I don't subtract anything. I let God say whatever he wants.

Yeah right. ehehehehehaw

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

And since sin is still " transgression of the LAW " 1 John 3:4 - that Faith is not redefining or abolishing the definition of sin - but rather freeing us from slavery to it.

Problem is that covenant is rescinded and replaced with another much different covenant of promises instead of law.

bugkiller

 

[Soyeong]

Then God sins. For God said through His prophet Jeremiah -

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And Jesus must also sin because He said -

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Two other Gospel writers record essentially the same thing. The words are translated slightly differently.

bugkiller

I don't see any sin committed in either of those passages.

I know the chapter well. To what are you referring?

That chapter talks about the law of sin in opposition to the law of God.

 

[bugkiller]

The term "under the LAW" in Gal 4 -- means under the obligation of the ceremonial law apart from faith.

Nope!!!! a thousand times Nope!!!!

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I don't see any sin committed in either of those passages.



That chapter talks about the law of sin in opposition to the law of God.

God changed the program and voided the law covenant made with Israel.

I'll ask you one more time what is the law of sin. I find no statement about your law of sin in the chapter except in the law verse. The whole chapter is about the law commonly referred to as the law of Moses which includes the famous 10 Cs. Paul clearly says he sins because he covets (one of the 10).

bugkiller