• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,261
6,249
Montreal, Quebec
✟316,021.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Which is subjective on your part.
No, I will bet a month's pay that serious experts in matters of debate will agree with my "thou shalt not evade thy opponent's argument" principle.

In other words you have set a standard in which you perceived has not been met. Yet if the other is asked they will tell you that that they have addressed said issue and you just don’t like the answer.
Well, they would be wrong if they cannot complete this sentence in the case of Romans 3:20:

"Therefore, the "but now" in verse 21 does not leave verse 20 in the past because.....<insert reasons>."

....just as I need to be able to complete this sentence:

In Romans 3:31, it is acceptable to interpret "we establish / uphold the law" in a manner that is consistent with it being now set aside because......<insert reasons>.

We are going round in circles in these threads. If we re going to get anywhere, posters need to:

a. stop constructing strawmen (e.g. the claim that I embrace lawlessness - I have never done such a thing)

b. cut back on the Gish Galloping - overwhelming the reader with so much material that one cannot possibly engage it.

c. stop evading the actual content of your opponent's argument (even if the arguments you do provide are valid in their own terms).

d. stop inserting your own undefended qualifications to what Jesus and / or Paul actually say.
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
14,038
5,646
USA
✟734,901.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Romans 13:8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

How anyone can interpret this scripture to mean love is that we can break these commandments honestly is beyond me. Love is when we keep (fulfill) these commandments. Love does no harm to a neighbor which when we do not keep these commandments IS harming our neighbor. Just like not keeping the first 4 commandments that relate to loving God.

Romans 13:8 works in harmony with God’s commandments because they are the same quoted from Exodus 20, which is about love and what God said right in the Ten and He wrote these commandments with His own finger, spoke them with His own voice.

Showing mercy to those who love Me and keep My commandments Exodus 20:6
God said it, I believe it.

And

For this is the love of God, that we KEEP His commandments- 1 John 5:3 sadly, the opposite of what some seems to be teaching.

And Paul who says what matters is keeping the commandments of God 1 Cor 7:19

Scripture does not delete scripture.

This verse should really settle it. This is the fruit of a saved person, so if thats the goal I would prayerfully consider these words.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I have addressed Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7 over and over again. The reader is invited to decide which set of arguments are most convincing.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on your claims here. I say this because you are yet to respond to any of my posts and address the scripture content showing the scripture contexts that disagree with your teachings of lawlessness (no law) in regards to Romans 7:7 and Romans 3:20. When the scripture context is provided back into the discussion examining your claims in regards to Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 the scriptures are in disagreement with you but your response is silence and to simply ignore the posts and scriptures that have been shared only in love and as a help to you. (evidence and scripture support you have ignored is provided starting here; with advanced argument and context being provided here; here; here; here and here linked).
But I want to talk about Galatians 3: 22-25: But the Scripture has confined everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the Law, being confined for the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian

I alway find it interesting when people elect, without warrant, to introduce qualifications to what Paul or Jesus say.

Here in Galatians, Paul says we are no longer under the law. Period. Yes, he says other things, such as the fact that we are now justified by faith. But, and this is key, how does this fact (that we are justified by faith) legitimze choosing to add a qualification, entirely unstated by Paul, to this effect:

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian......in the restricted sense that we are no longer justified by law (and the law remains in full force otherwise).

How do you defend such a move? What kind of careless writer would say we are no longer under the guardianship of the law and yet intend us to believe we need to continue to follow it? What does a guardian do, after all - it manages the behaviour of the child under guardianship! So to suggest that we still need to look to the law to govern our behavior abuses the very meaning of the term "guardian".

Yes, we are now justified by faith. Fine. But how, exactly, does this fact justify your decision to interpret "we are no longer under the guardianship of the law" as if the only issue here is how we are are "justified"?
Let's discuss Galatians 3 in detail and add the context back in that your disregarding if it might be helpful.

ADDING THE CONTEXTS BACK INTO GALATIANS 3:22-25

Let’s add the context in..
  • Galatians 3:13 CHRIST HATH REDEEMED US FROM THE CURSE OF THE LAW, BEING MADE A CURSE FOR US: for it is written, CURSED IS EVERY ONE THAT HANGS ON A TREE:
  • Galatians 3:21 IS THE LAW THEN AGAINST THE PROMISES OF GOD? GOD FORBID: FOR IF THERE HAD BEEN A LAW GIVEN WHICH COULD HAVE GIVEN LIFE, VERILY RIGHTEOUSNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BY THE LAW.
Note: The Law of God, the Ten Commandments, are the Law of Life and to transgress them is to die; *Romans 6:23. They are never against the promises of God, but are always and ever in harmony with them, being the very foundation of God’s government of mankind, and in fact, each of the Ten Commandments is a promise of God, in the New Covenant, that He will fulfill in those who have been born again to walk in His Spirit (1 John 3:4-9; Galatians 5:16) faith in Him to do them (1 John 5:2-4; Romans 3:31), and there is not a single "curse" in the Ten Commandments, which are all promises, but the "curses" fell upon those who kept not to their covenant agreement/promises to "do all". There are no curses in the Ten Commandments, and they are not against us, but there are in the Mosaic book of the covenant (Exodus 24:7), see Deuteronomy 31:26; Deuteronomy 31:28; Deuteronomy 30:19.

All the ten commandments do according to the scriptures is to give us a knowledge of good (moral right doing when obeyed), and evil (moral wrongdoing when disobeyed); sin (moral wrongdoing when disobeyed) and righteousness (moral right doing when obeyed) see Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 and Psalms 119:172. This is why Paul calls them holy just and good (Romans 7:7-12) Therefore because none of us have kept God’s law we are all under its condemnation and death and this is what is being taught in context in Galatians 3:22 which says [22] But the scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Jesus took our curse of death to pay the penalty for our sins with His own blood as the sinless lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world to all those who have faith in God’s promises. Let’s continue…
  • Galatians 3:23 [23], But before faith came, we were kept UNDER THE LAW, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Note: v23, says before faith has come it says we were kept "under the law", shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. What does it mean to be "under the law"? Romans 3:19-20 [19], Now we know that WHATSOEVER THINGS THE LAW SAYS, IT SAYS TO THEM WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW: THAT EVERY MOUTH MAY BE STOPPED AND ALL THE WORLD MAY BECOME GUILTY BEFORE GOD. [20], Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN. To be “under the law” in Romans 3:19 means to be under the law’s condemnation for sin with the scriptures defining sin as the transgression of the law in 1 John 3:4; James 2:10-11. Therefore, to be "under the law" in both Galatians 3:23 and Romans 3:19 means to be guilty before god of breaking the law (sin). This is what Paul also argues in Romans 3:9-20 that everyone of us have broken Gods’ law and are under its condemnation standing guilty before God “for by the law is the knowledge of sin” – Romans 3:20 and this is what God's Law teaches us. That we are all sinners in need of a Saviour
  • Galatians 3:24 [24], Therefore the law was our schoolmaster [GREEK παιδαγωγός means tutor; instructor; teacher; schoolmaster] to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Note: v24 the GREEK word used is παιδαγωγός which means tutor; instructor; teacher; schoolmaster. Therefore v24 says that before faith has come the Law was our teacher, tutor, schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified or forgiven by faith.
  • Galatians 3:25 [25], BUT AFTER THAT FAITH IS COME, we are NO LONGER UNDER A SCHOOLMASTER (teacher).
Note: So we ask the question, what does the law teach us? We touched on it earlier...
Romans 3:20 [20], Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN. So when Paul says “after faith is come” that is when we have faith in Christs sacrifice for our sins, we a no longer under the laws condemnation and death for breaking the law. That is the law is no longer condemning us for breaking it and that we are no longer condemned by the law teaching us that we are sinners and the wages of sin is death because Jesus paid the death penalty for our sins and became a curse for us. Therefore “after faith is come” as receive God’s forgiveness of sin and no longer under the laws condemnation of sin because we now have faith in the promises of God.

…………………

SUMMARY: The ten commandments therefore in Galatians 3:13-25 once scripture context is added back in is saying that God’s law “before faith has come” is our teacher, tutor, schoolmaster that teachers us that we are sinners it gives us a knowledge of what sin is and brings us to Christ that we might be justified by FAITH. This is the purpose of God's LAW in the Gospel. It teacher us that we are all sinners in need of a Saviour that we might be justified by Faith. It is not teaching that no one is now required to be obedient to Gods' law because that would be sin which is the transgression of the law and the wages of sin is death *Romans 6:23. So the scriptures are teaching the opposite of what your teaching here that there is no law in the new covenant.
  • IF there is NO LAW then we have NO KNOWLEDGE of what SIN is (NO TEACHER, SCHOOLMASTER)
  • IF we have no KNOWLEDGE of SIN we do not KNOW that we are all sinners in need of a Saviour.
  • IF we have no need of a Saviour then we have no Salvation.
  • If we have no Salvation then we are all lost because we are still in our sins and the scripture is fulfilled in Romans 3:12-13 [12], For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; [13], For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
God’s Word therefore does not teach what you are teachings which is lawlessness (no law).

You take care now what your teaching is not biblical.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Follow the conversation here...
expos4ever said: I have never said there is no law.
Your response here...
LoveGodsWord said: Are you not the one claiming Gods' 10 commandments have been now been abolished in the new covenant?
Your response here...
I am indeed claiming this.
If your claiming God's 10 commandments are abolished which is not biblical or supported in scripture your teaching that there is no more law and by law you know I am referring to God's 10 commandments. Your teaching that there is no law is therefore a teaching of lawlessness with the context of our discussion being Gods' ten commandments that give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Full context provided here...
expos4ever said: Indeed they are linked to the 10; I, for one, have never denied that what Jesus tells us to do is, to some degree, based on the 10. But that hardly means that we are still to look to the 10.
My full response here...
LoveGodsWord said: If you agree that love is expressed in obedience to Gods' law as shown through the scriptures earlier, than what is your argument now? - You have none. As Paul says Gods 10 commandments are not abolished through faith it is ESTABLISHED through faith that works by love (see Romans 3:31 compare with Romans 13:8-10; Romans 8:1-4). No one here is telling you to look to the law. As posted and shown from the scriptures already all the law does is to show give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing when obeyed) and evil (moral wrong doing when disobeyed); sin (moral wrong doing when disobeyed) and righteousness (moral right doing when obeyed) according to the new covenant scriptures *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 and also Psalms 119:172. James call them a mirror that shows us if we are loving out neighbor or not loving our neighbor in James 1:22-25; James 2:8-12 and John also shows that the test of love to God or man is obeying Gods' commandments as it is God's 10 commandments that show us how to love God and our fellow man (see 1 John 2:3-4 and 1 John 5:2-3). Therefore Gods' 10 commandments are the standard of if someone is loving God or their fellow man and also leads us to Christ when we break them that we might be forgiven through faith *Galatians 3:22-25 to be made free from sin and walk in His Spirit - Galatians 5:16. Love therefore does not abolish God's law like you teach. Love is expressed in obedience to Gods' law which teaches us how to love God and our fellow man. God's Word does not teach lawlessness (without law). It teaches obedience to Gods' law by faith in God's Word that works in a new heart that has been born again in the Spirit of God to love (John 3:3-7; 1 John 3:4-9; 1 John 5:2-4).
You responded with...
Well I do not agree with that, and believe I have never posted anything that suggests that, this side of the cross, love is expressed through obedience to the 10 commandments, or any other element of the Law of Moses.
Your in contradiction to what you posted earlier highlighted in blue above and with the scriptures provided that are in disagreement with your words here.

Take Care.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Full context provided here..
LoveGodsWord said: If you agree that love is expressed in obedience to Gods' law as shown through the scriptures earlier, than what is your argument now? - You have none. As Paul says Gods 10 commandments are not abolished through faith it is ESTABLISHED through faith that works by love (see Romans 3:31 compare with Romans 13:8-10; Romans 8:1-4). No one here is telling you to look to the law. As posted and shown from the scriptures already all the law does is to show give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing when obeyed) and evil (moral wrong doing when disobeyed); sin (moral wrong doing when disobeyed) and righteousness (moral right doing when obeyed) according to the new covenant scriptures *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 and also Psalms 119:172. James call them a mirror that shows us if we are loving out neighbor or not loving our neighbor in James 1:22-25; James 2:8-12 and John also shows that the test of love to God or man is obeying Gods' commandments as it is God's 10 commandments that show us how to love God and our fellow man (see 1 John 2:3-4 and 1 John 5:2-3). Therefore Gods' 10 commandments are the standard of if someone is loving God or their fellow man and also leads us to Christ when we break them that we might be forgiven through faith *Galatians 3:22-25 to be made free from sin and walk in His Spirit - Galatians 5:16. Love therefore does not abolish God's law like you teach. Love is expressed in obedience to Gods' law which teaches us how to love God and our fellow man. God's Word does not teach lawlessness (without law). It teaches obedience to Gods' law by faith in God's Word that works in a new heart that has been born again in the Spirit of God to love (John 3:3-7; 1 John 3:4-9; 1 John 5:2-4).
Your response here...
I have already provided an argument that it is plausible to read Romans 3:31 as Paul saying that we "establish" or "uphold" the law in the specific sense of endorsing its indispensable role in God's broader redemptive plan even though role has come to an end.
Actually no. It is you who has never provided any plausible argument in this thread or any other thread to explain away God's 10 commandments in the new covenant. For example, earlier you were simply trying to explain away Romans 3:31 that says [31], Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yes, we establish the law. You were provided a full context review of Romans 3:31 that you simply choose to ignore and not respond to that is in disagreement with you by showing the full scriptures context or Romans 3:9-31 that is in disagreement with you.
The details of the argument are here - I believe you have never actually engaged that argument. Did all the laws end at the cross- Part 2
The section is misleading. Your posting a link to you in another thread addressed to another poster that I had not even entered into for sometime after you made these comments. Are you insinuating that I have ignored a post that you wrote to me and did not engage in it? Why would I be engaging in that linked post when it was never addressed to me and you wrote this post in another thread topic in post #166 and I did not even enter this thread discussion until post # 190 and was never in discussion with you until post # 208?
I suggest you have not made this case at all in the sense that you have not actually addressed the argument this role of the law comes to an end at the cross as I have argued in detail.
I would suggest that it is the other way around dear friend and you have not made your case or have you addressed any of the posts shared with you that show the context you have left out of the scripture you provide that are in disagreement with you. Everyone of your posts sent to me have been addressed with detailed scripture responses providing the context you leave out of the scriptures provided to you that are in disagreement with you. Your the one that does not respond to or address the content of my posts and is unwilling to engage in a detailed response and discussion with the posts that have been provided in love to you and only sent as a help to you trying to micro-quote what I say out of context to the rest of my post responses to you. You have not provided a single scripture once the context has been provided back into the discussion to show that anyone of Gods' 10 commandments has ceased at the cross. Your mixing up the Mosaic "shadow laws" of things to come pointing to Christ (Sanctuary laws, laws for remission of sins and sin offerings, Levitical Priesthood, circumcision etc) with God's eternal laws that give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken in the new covenant. Your promoting teachings of lawlessness (no law) This is a false teaching unsupported by scripture in opposition to the very words of God designed to lead people away from God and His Word into sin and unbelief. Run away from it as fast as you can.
For example, where have you actually my argument (below) to the effect that the "but now...." wording in Romans 3:21 does not mean that we have moved on from what was said in verse 20, namely that the law gives knowledge of sin. Here is one place where I made that argument. Please address it - don't dance away from it by providing other material, that while perhaps correct, does not squarely address the actual content of my argument in post here:
Did all the laws end at the cross- Part 2
There is no truth in your claims here that your example of your argument in Romans 3:21 has not been addressed. Your "But now" argument was addressed in a detailed scripture response that you simply ignored and did not respond to (see bottom half of the post and scripture response provided here linked). Romans 3:31 was also dealt with in other posts providing the full scriptures contexts that are in disagreement with you that you never responded to here in post # 360 right here linked and elsewhere that disagrees with your teachings of lawlessness and you trying to explain away Romans 3:31. Your response was to simply ignore these posts. Your claim in this post are untruthful.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I want to address a form of evasion that I believe some are engaging in. When challenged, they will respond with material, often a lot of it, that effectively avoids dealing with the challenge.

Let me be more concrete with an example:

I (who believe the 10 no longer apply) have argued that Romans 3:20 - that declares that the law gives knowledge of sin - describes what was true before the cross. Central to my argument is that right after verse 20, we get this:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed....

My point is that the "but now" clearly indicates a transition from what was the case to what is now the case

When someone responds to this argument, they must, repeat must, at least in order to be credible, be able to complete this sentence:

"Therefore, the "but now" in verse 21 does not leave verse 20 in the past because.....<insert reasons>."

Do you see what I mean? Unless the respondent can complete this sentence, they are evading the challenge I have posed.

This works both ways. And I have risen to this challenge with respect to Romans 3:31 by posting variations of this:

The establishment of the Law in verse 31 need not entail believing the law remains in force because to "establish the law" can plausibly entail endorsing its indispensable role in God's broader redemptive plan without committing to the position that the Law remains in force.

Arguments need to be engaged in their own terms. Often posters will provide arguments that may have their own merits but that do not actually deal with the specifics of the text they have been challenged with.

Well that is not truthful. Your "But now" argument from Romans 3:21was addressed with a detailed scripture response that you simply ignored and did not respond to (see bottom half of the post and scripture response provided here linked). Romans 3:31 was also dealt with in other posts providing the full scriptures contexts that are in disagreement with you that you never responded to here in post # 360 right here linked and elsewhere that disagrees with your teachings of lawlessness and you trying to explain away Romans 3:31. Your response was to simply ignore these posts. Your claim in this post are untruthful.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,261
6,249
Montreal, Quebec
✟316,021.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How anyone can interpret this scripture to mean love is that we can break these commandments honestly is beyond me.
And what is beyond me is that, even though this has been explained to you many many times, no one here is suggesting that we are free to murder, steal, or commit adultery.
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
14,038
5,646
USA
✟734,901.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
And what is beyond me is that, even though this has been explained to you many many times, no one here is suggesting that we are free to murder, steal, or commit adultery.
That’s good, than we are in agreement we are not free to break the commandments of God.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,261
6,249
Montreal, Quebec
✟316,021.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I say this because you are yet to respond to any of my posts and address the scripture content showing the scripture contexts that disagree with your teachings of lawlessness (no law)
Well, you continue to post demonstrably false statements even though you have been corrected many many times.

Do you think that if you repeat the same demonstrably false claim again and again and again and again that this will magically transform the false statement into a correct one?

It is time to stop doing this.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,261
6,249
Montreal, Quebec
✟316,021.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That’s good, than we are in agreement we are not free to break the commandments of God.
No, we do not agree.

If we have the indwelling Spirit and follow the commandments of Jesus, we do not need the 10 commandments.

You are in the incredibly difficult position of having to assert that we need the 10 commandments because, apparently, the Holy Spirit is entirely incapable of letting you know that murder, adultery, and covetousness are not acceptable.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Well, you continue to post demonstrably false statements even though you have been corrected many many times.

Do you think that if you repeat the same demonstrably false claim again and again and again and again that this will magically transform the false statement into a correct one?

It is time to stop doing this.
I am sorry dear friend but I do not believe you as shown why through the scriptures already so we will agree to disagree.

Take Care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You're much too kind in your appellation of it.
Welcome to the determined strategy to obfuscate the Scriptures without ever directly addressing them.
Welcome to dodge and repeated non-responsiveness, ad infinitum. You're wasting your time trying to inform it, for it is not based in ignorance, which can be corrected by informing.
Does this apply to you or who are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
14,038
5,646
USA
✟734,901.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
No, we do not agree.

If we have the indwelling Spirit and follow the commandments of Jesus, we do not need the 10 commandments.

You are in the incredibly difficult position of having to assert that we need the 10 commandments because, apparently, the Holy Spirit is entirely incapable of letting you know that murder, adultery, and covetousness are not acceptable.

That’s right the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin (breaking God’s law) for those who have not harden their hearts. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not at odds with each other so God’s law works in harmony and not against the Holy Spirit. John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32, Acts 2:38 James tells us you break one of the commandments of God quoting directly from the Ten, you break them all. James 2:10-12. Jesus told us to keep the least of the commandments quoting from the Ten or you will be least in heaven. Matthew 5:19-30 I don’t think least means we will barely make it in heaven, but we have fee will to test that the theory. Keeping the commandments does no harm, but not keeping them there are lots of warnings throughout scripture. Take care
 
  • Winner
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,261
6,249
Montreal, Quebec
✟316,021.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am sorry dear friend but I do not believe you as shown why through the scriptures already so we will agree to disagree.

Take Care.
You have no right to continue to promote the falsehood that I believe in lawlessness.

This is not true, and you know it.

You are free to believe what you like about what the scriptures teach, but you are not free to intentionally misrepresent the views of others.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You have no right to continue to promote the falsehood that I believe in lawlessness. This is not true, and you know it.

My application and use of the word lawlessness is applied to the meaning without law. You believe and teach that Gods' 10 commandments are abolished in the new covenant (without law) which is not biblical or supported in the scriptures. How is this a falsehood? - It isn't
 
  • Agree
Reactions: daq
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
9,309
2,559
55
Northeast
✟243,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If your claiming God's 10 commandments are abolished which is not biblical or supported in scripture your teaching that there is no more law and by law you know I am referring to God's 10 commandments.
If I may observe here,

@LoveGodsWord is defining "law" as the ten commandments.

@expos4ever is defining "law" as a set of laws which may or may not include the ten commandments (my impression).

Two very different definitions of "law".

The scriptures, of course, use "law" to mean different things in different places.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
If I may observe here,

@LoveGodsWord is defining "law" as the ten commandments.

@expos4ever is defining "law" as a set of laws which may or may not include the ten commandments (my impression).

Two very different definitions of "law".

The scriptures, of course, use "law" to mean different things in different places.
According to the scriptures, Gods' 10 commandments are a part of the Gods eternal law that gives us a knowledge of what sin is when broken and righteousness when obeyed *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Psalms 119:172. There is no scripture in all of Gods' Word that says they have been abolished in the new covenant. There are different laws in the bible for sure but our discussion here is in context to Gods 10 commandments which according to the new covenant scriptures, give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
9,309
2,559
55
Northeast
✟243,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
According to the scriptures, Gods' 10 commandments are a part of the Gods eternal law that gives us a knowledge of what sin is when broken and righteousness when obeyed *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Psalms 119:172. There is no scripture in all of Gods' Word that says they have been abolished in the new covenant. There are different laws in the bible but our discussion in context is to Gods 10 commandments which according to the new covenant scriptures, give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken.
There are other uses of the word "law" in the scriptures. If you say that someone is without law, they may not make the connection that you mean that they are without the ten commandments.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
There are other uses of the word "law" in the scriptures. If you say that someone is without law, they may not make the connection that you mean that they are without the ten commandments.
Yes but that is not in context to what we are discussing now is it. The context to our discussion is Gods' 10 commandments and the claims they have been abolished.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0