Removing the laws of God- what does it really mean?

[Religiot]

See, what happened was people were always checking to see if they measured up. And many believed that they did measure up. The new covenant ensures that each of us is sinful beyond measure.

Paul in Romans 7 is not talking about the new covenant nor the old, but God's laws--which show that we are sinful, exceedingly.

The new covenant is the remedy to the preservation of God's laws and the salvation of our lives, by joining the two in Christ, the new Administrator of God's laws, and Author of our eternal salvation: this He did by writing God's laws in our hearts, by His Spirit. Amen.

 

[Nathan@work]

You are arguing about degrees of knowing the something vs experiencing the short end of it. The degree to which you know about dying of cancer - increases as you get cancer and die of it. But that sort of knowing is useless. Nothing is gained by first having to die of cancer to obtain that level of knowledge. And it is not likely that the Holy Spirit will drag you through the process of dying of cancer just so you can gain that knowledge.

We’re talking about good and evil. Not just the results of evil.

No doubt mankind knows about evil....

 

[BobRyan]

And you left out
3) Heb 4:1-11, v.9, where the Sabbath was a shadow of the things to come (Sabbath-rest in Christ for the people of God, v.9), while
the reality (rest from our own works to save ourselves, v.10) is found in Christ, not in a day of the week.

The Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ (Heb 4:9-11).

1. No text says "The Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ"
2. No text says "the Sabbath was a shadow of things to come"
3. Heb 4:9 9 Consequently, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

"Remains" from when ? Heb 4:9 has it remaining as it was at the time of David.

No text says, "God is sovereign," but it is presented throughout the Bible;

If one is going to make doctrine out of what you admit "no text says" then it is best to state the terms in such a way as to have something in scripture that matches. You are pointing to texts and then using terms you admit are not in the text.

There is a certain benefit to "sola scriptura testing" that demands we notice when "no text says that" -- after some claim is made.

e.g., Da 4:35.
So let's get past "no text says/states."

That can be done if you use terms where the text you provide supports what you are saying.

Into what rest do we enter, what does it consist of, in the NT (Heb 4:9-11)?
It's not Canaan (Heb 4:8).

Heb 4 says it is the same rest that existed in David's day - where some entered and others did not.

Heb 11 provides a whole list of OT saints that entered that rest.

So when it says that it 'remains for SOME to enter' the argument is that the rest was already valid, available and working - at the time of David and that people did enter it back then just as they are called to enter today, but "some" did not.

It cannot be supposed that Heb 4 deleted the 4th commandment in David's day.

Rest that is fully entered in David's day "by some" while God's Sabbath is fully in force - proves that the two are not in conflict.

 

[BobRyan]

We’re talking about good and evil. Not just the results of evil.

No doubt mankind knows about evil....

Indeed and we also know about Satan... but we don't have to be demon possessed or turn into another Satan in our pursuit of knowledge. In fact that knowledge is not even useful.

So while you are correct to say that there are ways to know even more about it - it is also true that such knowledge is pointless and leads one to say "I wish I had never known that , or never done that, or never made that bad choice".

Suppose you have a small child and then there comes onto the market a truly horrific scary horror movie that scars children for life that watch it. It is technically correct that the child that watched it and now sleeps with the lights on for the rest of their life - "knows more" about that movie than the child that did not watch it... but is that knowledge useful or just a big regret?

 

[BobRyan]

Paul in Romans 7 is not talking about the new covenant nor the old, but God's laws--which show that we are sinful, exceedingly.

I agree that the Law does show our sin just as you state. And it does not matter if we lived in OT or NT times "taking God's name in vain" would still be "sin" and show our need of the Gospel.

Paul does not use terms like "Old Covenant" or "New Covenant" in Rom 7 - just "The Law" which is "good" in Rom 7 but has bound the sinner to the penalty of the second death - as Romans 6 points out at the end of the chapter. (Which I think is also in line with your point above).

Regarding a prior discussion on this thread:
(Heb 7 is not talking about the Law of God that condemns mankind as a sinner - as Paul pointed out in Rom 3:19-20. It is talking about the law that gives requirements for the priesthood.)

Rom 7 speaks of the Law that defines sin and condemns all mankind as sinners - but does not argue that the "Holy Just and Good" Law of God is set aside. Rather the penalty it demands is paid - thus it is upheld. It is not an argument for setting aside the Law that says "do not covet" - it is the point that we are forgiven and then changed as Romans 8 points out. Romans 6 already made the case that as a born again Christian we are not to violate the Law of God.

Rom 6 points to the fact that the Law demands the second death penalty be paid. Rom 7 makes the case that all are chained to that condemnation legally and that Christ frees us from that bondage by paying our debt and causing the New Birth.

Which is why in Eph 6:1-2 it is still a sin to dishonor parents even after Christ ascends to heaven... and it is still a sin to "take God's name in vain" -- even after Christ ascends to heaven

The Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant quoted verbatim in Heb 8:6-12 is unchanged from OT to NT and in both cases has the "law of God written on heart and mind".

 

[Nathan@work]

No, not at all: the Pharisees were adding to God's laws their traditions, and failing to keep God's laws by the same.

Christ did not command the man to sin, but to move along, according to the law--for it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, as the Spirit says through Isaiah.

The fallacy of this misunderstanding is plain, not only by what the Spirit says, but by the Lord's own words, for later that very day He finds Him, and commands him not to continue in sin, lest something worse should come upon him.

--Folks, I know most of you don't realize this now, but you're not arguing against us lawful folks about our opinions, but against the actual commands of the Lord.

Please reconsider what you're doing, cause this conversation is devolving into allegations of sin against the Lord Himself, a thing so absurd that it repels my mind to no end, yet here y'all are, actually considering it!

I think your not actually reading what I’m saying.

If you asked me, you would know I believe Gods commandments are eternal. Any breaking of them is sin. They should never be removed or though of as no longer valid.

You prove my point though. You probably don’t see it.

The Pharisees thought they knew good from evil, but they obviously did not.

The issue is not whether we know good and evil. We do. Just the same as we know what God has commanded to do, and what not to do.

The issue is mankind’s discernment of Gods commandments. To focus in on Gods commandments, rather than His Spirit, is to think we can be like Him - knowing all that is good and evil.

This is the lie from the beginning - to be like God.

When so called Christians put focus on the law rather than the Spirit, then they by that very act, believe the lie - that they can be like God.

Only the Spirit knows good from evil and can rightly teach us His ways.

The focus of the child of God is following the Spirit, not the law. Following the Spirit will result in obeying Gods commandments - not the other way around.

 

[Nathan@work]

Indeed and we also know about Satan... but we don't have to be demon possessed or turn into another Satan in our pursuit of knowledge. In fact that knowledge is not even useful.

So while you are correct to say that there are ways to know even more about it - it is also true that such knowledge is pointless and leads one to say "I wish I had never known that , or never done that, or never made that bad choice".

Suppose you have a small child and then there comes onto the market a truly horrific scary horror movie that scars children for life that watch it. It is technically correct that the child that watched it and now sleeps with the lights on for the rest of their life - "knows more" about that movie than the child that did not watch it... but is that knowledge useful or just a big regret?

Again, your focus is on evil.

Gods commandments show us we are evil, not that we are good. Why?

Because mans nature(fallen) is to think he knows good from evil.

The fact is, fallen man only knows one shade of evil from another shade.

He says to himself, “this thing is better than that, so it is good and the other is evil”. Wrong....

Good is pure, with no evil - evil is anything and everything that is not pure good.

In other words, a glass of pure water is only pure if it contains nothing else. Once you put something in with it - no matter the amount - it is no longer pure.

 

[BobRyan]

The Pharisees thought they knew good from evil, but they obviously did not.

The issue is not whether we know good and evil. We do. Just the same as we know what God has commanded to do, and what not to do.

The issue is mankind’s discernment of Gods commandments. To focus in on Gods commandments, rather than His Spirit, is to think we can be like Him - knowing all that is good and evil.

Paul makes the case in Phil 3 that as a Pharisee he at one time considered himself "blameless" when it comes to the Law of God.

Phil 3
4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

In 1 Tim 1:12-15 he declared himself at that time to be the worst of sinners when as a Pharisee he viewed himself as "blameless".

But even the most baby of Christians today would know that torturing people, driving them from faith in Christ, getting them killed for being a Christian - is not even remotely having the appearance of conformity to the Law of God.

This is not a case of "yes technically you were sinless, in perfect compliance with the Law of God -- but you did not have the right spirit". Paul in Romans 2 continually contrasts the law of God with the actions of the Jews.

The Law of God is a product of that very Spirit of God that informs us of it.

The Holy Spirit "convicts the WORLD of sin, and righteousness and judgment" John 16 - where HE says "sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4. That is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit!

 

[Religiot]

Did Satan tell Jesus the truth?

Satan does not speak the truth: all that he says, no matter what he says, is ultimately to form a lie, especially when he sounds like he's telling the truth. That is how we see him lie in scripture, by twisting the truth, even if slightly, so long as that twist renders a lie.

Look no further than their actions. If they actually knew good from evil, they would not have hid. Sin confuses the mind.

You are mistaken: Adam plainly tells God that he hid because he realized that he was naked.

Again, you’ll never find where mankind is said to be able to discern good from evil. Only in Christ, by the power of the Spirit, is man able to do it now.

Perhaps you are right about that, by extension, yet fundamentally, man does know good from evil, but will choose evil over good, each time, unless he fears God.

 

[BobRyan]

Again, your focus is on evil.

My focus in that post was in not wanting to know more about evil ... not wanting to experience being evil.

IN Gen 3 Satan argued that great benefit would be had by knowing more about the path of rebellion, evil, sin...

Gods commandments show us we are evil, not that we are good.

Agreed. That is the whole point of Rom 3:19-20 -- it is the work/ministry that God's Law has for the lost.

And Heb 8:6-13 shows us in the New Covenant - the work/ministry God's Law has for the saved - it is written on the heart.

Same Law - different context.

Jesus said it is like a ROCK - whoever falls on it - will be broken but on whomever it falls - they will be crushed to powder.

The repentant sinner convinced of his sins -- falls upon the ROCK and dies to self - they are saved because of the New Birth, Justification and then Sanctification imparting conformity to the Word -- in the life of the Christian.

The wicked reject that relationship - and are "destroyed" by that same Law as Christ points out in Matt 10:28

 

[Religiot]

Heb 7 is not talking about the Law of God that condemns mankind as a sinner - as Paul pointed out in Rom 3:19-20. It is talking about the law that gives requirements for the priesthood.

Rom 7 speaks of the Law that defines sin and condemns all mankind as sinners - but does not argue that the "Holy Just and Good" Law of God is set aside. Rather the penalty it demands is paid - thus it is upheld. It is not an argument for setting aside the Law that says "do not covet" - it is the point that we are forgiven and then changed as Romans 8 points out. Romans 6 already made the case that as a born again Christian we are not to violate the Law of God.

Rom 6 points to the fact that the Law demands the second death penalty be paid. Rom 7 makes the case that all are chained to that condemnation legally and that Christ frees us from that bondage by paying our debt and causing the New Birth.

Which is why in Eph 6:1-2 it is still a sin to dishonor parents even after Christ ascends to heaven... and it is still a sin to "take God's name in vain" -- even after Christ ascends to heaven

The Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant quoted verbatim in Heb 8:6-12 is unchanged from OT to NT and in both cases has the "law of God written on heart and mind".

With respect, I don't know why you've responded to my post with the above: please clarify what you think I meant by what I said.

Very truly, thank you.

 

[BobRyan]

With respect, I don't know why you've responded to my post with the above: please clarify what you think I meant by what I said.

Very truly, thank you.

yep - I think I made a mistake there. My apologies. I have updated that post.

 

[Clare73]

duplicate

 

[SkyWriting]

If we remove God's laws what are we really teaching and what are we removing from our lives?

Scripture covers that.

Romans 7:6
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

Romans 4:15
For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

James 1:25
But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty,
and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

 

[SkyWriting]

What happens if we remove Gods laws? Is God’s character in Gods laws? If we remove His laws are we removing God?

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

2 CORINTHIANS 3:6
AMP
He has qualified us [making us sufficient] as ministers of a new covenant [of salvation through Christ], not of the letter [of a written code] but of the Spirit; for the letter [of the Law] kills [by revealing sin and demanding obedience], but the Spirit gives life.

 

[SkyWriting]

It has nothing at all to do with making it ok to take God's name in vain aft....

All sin is forgiven before the act. Believers cannot be judged.
What Does the Bible Say About Not Being Judged?

 

[Religiot]

I agree that the Law does show our sin just as you state. And it does not matter if we lived in OT or NT times "taking God's name in vain" would still be "sin" and show our need of the Gospel.

Paul does not use terms like "Old Covenant" or "New Covenant" in Rom 7 - just "The Law" which is "good" in Rom 7 but has bound the sinner to the penalty of the second death - as Romans 6 points out at the end of the chapter. (Which I think is also in line with your point above).

Regarding a prior discussion on this thread:
(Heb 7 is not talking about the Law of God that condemns mankind as a sinner - as Paul pointed out in Rom 3:19-20. It is talking about the law that gives requirements for the priesthood.)

Rom 7 speaks of the Law that defines sin and condemns all mankind as sinners - but does not argue that the "Holy Just and Good" Law of God is set aside. Rather the penalty it demands is paid - thus it is upheld. It is not an argument for setting aside the Law that says "do not covet" - it is the point that we are forgiven and then changed as Romans 8 points out. Romans 6 already made the case that as a born again Christian we are not to violate the Law of God.

Rom 6 points to the fact that the Law demands the second death penalty be paid. Rom 7 makes the case that all are chained to that condemnation legally and that Christ frees us from that bondage by paying our debt and causing the New Birth.

Which is why in Eph 6:1-2 it is still a sin to dishonor parents even after Christ ascends to heaven... and it is still a sin to "take God's name in vain" -- even after Christ ascends to heaven

The Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant quoted verbatim in Heb 8:6-12 is unchanged from OT to NT and in both cases has the "law of God written on heart and mind".

I'm feel as if we agree, yet I'm not entirely sure; so please tell me what you think of the following:

I believe that God's laws are eternal, all of them, not just the ten commandments: for example, I think circumcision remains a token of the covenant with Abraham, now transferred to Christ who circumcises our hearts, etc. I think each covenant has been absorbed by the latter as a natural process of growth seems to absorb the former parts, but has in-fact grown from them; so too do I think God's covenants were all pointing to Christ's final covenant, the redemption of men by grace through faith.

--I simply believe that God's laws have been transferred to Christ, all of them, and that Christ is now the new Administrator of God's laws, like Levi once was.

I cannot reconcile the scriptures apart from that.

Following is my first proof:

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW IS NOW TRANSLATED TO CHRIST

"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed*, there is made of necessity a change* also of the law." --Hebrews 7:11-12

*change, not in form, but transfered, that is, from one to another, viz:

Strong's:
3331 metathesis met-ath'-es-is from 3346; transposition, i.e. transferral

3346 metatithemi met-at-ith'-ay-mee from 3326 and 5087; to transfer, i.e. (literally) transport, (by implication) exchange, (reflexively) change sides, or (figuratively) pervert:--carry over, change, remove, translate, turn. see GREEK for 3326 see GREEK for 5087

"translatio" -E. Jerome -Heb 7:12 (L. Vulgate) [c.405]

"translacioun" -J. Wycliffe -Heb 7:12 (Wycliffe B.) [c.1395]

"translated" -W. Tyndale -Heb 7:12 (Tyndale B.) [1525/1530]

"traspasamiento" -C. de Reina -Heb 7:12 (B. del Oso) [1569]


Full Citation:

"translato enim sacerdotio necesse est ut et legis translatio fiat" -Hebrews 7:12, The Latin Vulgate, c.405 AD, Translator: Eusibius Jerome

"For whi whanne the preesthod is translatid, it is nede that also translacioun of the lawe be maad." -Hebrews 7:12, The Wycliff Bible, c.1395 AD, Translator: John Wycliff

"Now no dout yf the presthod be translated then of necessitie must the lawe be translated also." -Hebrews 7:12, The Tyndale Bible, 1525/1530 AD, Translator: William Tyndale

"Pues traspasado el sacerdocio, necesario es que se haga también traspasamiento de la Ley." -Hebrews 7:12, La Biblia Del Oso, 1569 AD, Translator: Casiodoro de Reina


Translation /Trans·la´tion/ (?), n. [F. translation, L. translatio a transferring, translation, version. See Translate, and cf. Tralation.] 1. The act of translating, removing, or transferring; removal; also, the state of being translated or removed; as, the translation of Enoch; the translation of a bishop. --Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language [1913]

Let me know what you think, I will truly appreciate it, thanks.

 

[Chi.C]

bye

 

[Beanieboy]

I'm more in the camp that loving your neighbor as yourself is loving God and fulfills all the Commandments, but preferred to lurk in these posts.

However, something has me confused. I often here "We must follow God's commandments," but I am unclear what they are referring to. Read this thread, it could mean the 10 Commandments, or the Commandments of the Jews, or all 613 commandments.
Why do we not keep Duet 25:5
If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

No one keeps that commandment. So, how does one concerned with keeping commandments determine which commandments?

Additional question: The Pharisees focused heavily on the law to the point of burdening people. They often outwardly kept the law to condemn others and exalt themselves. They were chastised for straining a gnat but swallowing a camel, repeated again when saying one is a hypocrite to point out the speck in your neighbor's eye with a log in your own, and again saying they knew how much of their herbs to tithe while ignoring the most important parts - faithfulness, mercy and justice. Do you see a danger of following the law that leads to self righteousness, condemnation of others, or negating Christ, believing one is earning their way to heaven?

Last question: Is there a commandment that told the sheep and the goats to feed someone who is hungry, clothe the poor, etc? Why is that what they are judged upon? (To me, it shows one was loving their neighbor.)

 

[Beanieboy]

One more comment: The 10 Commandments mostly speak of what not to do. Loving your neighbor, on the other hand, such as with the Samaritan, may trump a commandment (such as the priest and Levite remaining clean before temple) to have empathy to care for the beaten man. Does anyone feel proud to stand before God and say they didn't kill anyone? Or that they helped someone in need? Two very different mindsets.