Abolishing the law of commandments

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

We inherit the sin; it's passed along to all humanity, which is why we all inevitably sin. The sin, the anomaly in creation, is to be separated or alienated from God, born without the "knowledge of God", indicating a direct, personal knowledge. That lack of knowledge of God, and the solidarity with Him which it should accomplish, is what we inherited from Adam.

But man was made for communion with God. He's lost, dead, sick apart from Him. And yet we're born apart from Him. Jesus came so that we may be reconciled with Him, and enter union again. "Apart from Me you can do nothing", John 15:5, including maintaining moral integrity. So Adam's sin wasn't merely imputed to us; rather it became ours, that state of separation, sometimes referred to as "original sin".

Not true. We do not inherit sin from someone else but we can suffer the consequence of it...in this case sin entered the world through Adam and with it death. We are born into a fallen world.

 

[fhansen]

Not true. We do not inherit sin from someone else but we can suffer the consequence of it...in this case sin entered the world through Adam and with it death. We are born into a fallen world.

Sin is to be out of sync with the will of God. We're all born into a fallen state of injustice, which is why man must first of all be reconciled to God in order to enter the state of justice/righteousness that he was created for. And, yes, that fallen state is a consequence of Adam's sin.

IOW, we inherited the very alienation from God that Adam opted for. As well as ushering in physical death that fallen state is the essence of man's spiritual death, sometimes referred to as the "death of the soul". Spiritually apart from God we're dead, the "walking dead", in need of being "born again".

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Sin is to be out of sync with the will of God. We're all born into a fallen state of injustice, which is why man must first of all be reconciled to God in order to enter the state of justice/righteousness that he was created for. And, yes, that fallen state is a consequence of Adam's sin.

IOW, we inherited the very alienation from God that Adam opted for. As well as ushering in physical death that fallen state is the essence of man's spiritual death, sometimes referred to as the "death of the soul". Spiritually apart from God we're dead, the "walking dead", in need of being "born again".

Um, OK. Nothing you wrote disproves what I said.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not true at all. What we are subject to is death because of Adam's sin. Sin entered the world and we bear the consequences of that sin, death. We are all born into a fallen world. We are NOT guilty of Adam's sin, we bear the consequences of it. Big difference.

"original sin" meaning the sin of humanity's origin story which brought death and some corruptions of human nature is an interesting topic to pursue but does it bear on Abolishing the law of commandments?

I can imagine some ways in which a link can be constructed.

 

[Jonaitis]

Agreed. Does that mean that the law in its totality is not applicable to Christians or is there some kind of selectivity implied?

Are you familiar with natural and positive laws? What is morally native is applicable, as evident by the light of nature and reason (general revelation). For an example, you shall not murder is naturally evident. What is morally foreign (positive law) is subjective between God and the party that He covenants with, as evident only in direct revelation (prophets, apostles, scriptures). For example, you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a law revealed to Adam, not evident in creation.

Every covenant is bound to the eternal moral law evident in nature, as summarized in the Ten Commandments, and further abridged in the Two Greatest Commandments. If there are no positive laws for the Jew any longer, as their fathers obeyed, they must supplant it with the tradition of the apostles. So then, what changes? You know the answer, all I am doing is drawing out in words.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Are you familiar with natural and positive laws? What is morally native is applicable, as evident by the light of nature and reason (general revelation). For an example, you shall not murder is naturally evident. What is morally foreign (positive law) is subjective between God and the party that He covenants with, as evident only in direct revelation (prophets, apostles, scriptures). For example, you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a law revealed to Adam, not evident in creation.

Every covenant is bound to the eternal moral law evident in nature, as summarized in the Ten Commandments, and further abridged in the Two Greatest Commandments. If there are no positive laws for the Jew any longer, as their fathers obeyed, they must supplant it with the tradition of the apostles. So then, what changes? You know the answer, all I am doing is drawing out in words.

I agree but want to question the Ten Commandments as a verbal embodiment of natural revelation's moral system.

One can argue that the principal of rest after some amount of work is a natural consequence of the way we are made but I think one would be hard pressed to reasonably argue that one must rest one day in seven and even more specifically that the one day in seven must be the 7th day which a vast number of Christians treat as "Saturday".

One may question some of the specifics about coveting, a misuse of the letters YHWH in that combination, marriage and adultery, and finally honouring one's parents - would such honouring come to a proper end when one marries and raises one's own family or ought it to persist until one's parents die?

 

[Jonaitis]

I agree but want to question the Ten Commandments as a verbal embodiment of natural revelation's moral system.

One can argue that the principal of rest after some amount of work is a natural consequence of the way we are made but I think one would be hard pressed to reasonably argue that one must rest one day in seven and even more specifically that the one day in seven must be the 7th day which a vast number of Christians treat as "Saturday".

One may question some of the specifics about coveting, a misuse of the letters YHWH in that combination, marriage and adultery, and finally honouring one's parents - would such honouring come to a proper end when one marries and raises one's own family or ought it to persist until one's parents die?

It would come down to the moral equity and intentional aim of the commandment. I have been recently on the fence about my confessional position on the Sabbath in light of this very topic. Does God care for a specific day, or He is more concerned about the necessity of rest and time for devotion? How does the fourth commandment apply to me if we are no longer required to keep the Sabbath? I would say that you need to find private time to spend for yourself and God. In applying the moral equity of that commandment to my everyday life allows me to still obey the law without obeying the Law, if that makes sense.

 

[pasifika]

Sin is the transgression of the law. The curse was abolished, not the law. If you murder, it is still a sin. That has not changed.

How can you separate the curse from the Law??
The curse is a result of breaking the law, so if the curse is abolished then there is no point for the law in condemning Sin.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

"original sin" meaning the sin of humanity's origin story which brought death and some corruptions of human nature is an interesting topic to pursue but does it bear on Abolishing the law of commandments?

I can imagine some ways in which a link can be constructed.

I would say that the CURSE was abolished on the cross... Galatians 3:13 ...when it says we are not UNDER the law, it means we are not subject to its curse/judgement any longer...it does not mean you are free to break it...murder is still a sin and transgresses the law...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

How can you separate the curse from the Law??
The curse is a result of breaking the law, so if the curse is abolished then there is no point for the law in condemning Sin.

Yet sin still exists but not the curse, which was abolished on the cross. If you sin, there is still a curse (death)...unless you have atonement. As I said above, when it says we are not UNDER the law, it means we are not subject to its curse/judgement any longer...it does not mean you are free to break it...murder is still a sin and transgresses the law...

 

[fhansen]

Yet sin still exists but not the curse, which was abolished on the cross. If you sin, there is still a curse (death)...unless you have atonement. As I said above, when it says we are not UNDER the law, it means we are not subject to its curse/judgement any longer...it does not mean you are free to break it...murder is still a sin and transgresses the law...

To be under the law means that we’re obliged to fulfill it on our own. To be under grace means that we fulfill it by virtue of union with God, which is the only authentic way to do so. The obligation to be righteous does not go away with the New Covenant. So sin still earns us death but now we can finally overcome sin, by the Spirit, by grace, having been reconciled with God.

“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:13

The law is a curse because it can only condemn us, by showing that we’re unable to fulfill it. It convicts us of sin while not having the power to overcome sin in us.

“But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.”

“So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” Rom 7:6-7, 12

The problem was never with the Law but with us, due to our exile from our Creator. Christ opens the door so that we may now decide if we wish to continue on the path set by our original parents, or return to the God they rather easily and foolishly dismissed in Eden, having preferred themselves to God as it’s been taught.

 

[The Liturgist]

We inherit the sin; it's passed along to all humanity, which is why we all inevitably sin. The sin, the anomaly in creation, is to be separated or alienated from God, born without the "knowledge of God", indicating a direct, personal knowledge. That lack of knowledge of God, and the solidarity with Him which it should accomplish, is what we inherited from Adam.

But man was made for communion with God. He's lost, dead, sick apart from Him. And yet we're born apart from Him. Jesus came so that we may be reconciled with Him, and enter union again. "Apart from Me you can do nothing", John 15:5, including maintaining moral integrity. So Adam's sin wasn't merely imputed to us; rather it became ours, that state of separation, sometimes referred to as "original sin".

This is Augustinian doctrine, but the Orthodox follow the doctrine of St. John Cassian, as do I. The article I linked to above, Ancestral Sin vs. Original Sin, provides a much better analysis.

I believe the increase in popularity of St. Augustine in the West at the expense of St. John Cassian, another Latin saint, historically more important and considered as responsible as Augustine and Archbishop St. Celestine of Rome for the defeat of Pelagius.

 

[The Liturgist]

To be under the law means that we’re obliged to fulfill it on our own. To be under grace means that we fulfill it by virtue of union with God, which is the only authentic way to do so. The obligation to be righteous does not go away with the New Covenant. So sin still earns us death but now we can finally overcome sin, by the Spirit, by grace, having been reconciled with God.

“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:13

On this point we agree, and I believe what you wrote here is compliant with my understanding of Eastern Orthodox kerygma. I generally follow the Orthodox church on hamartiology.

 

[fhansen]

Deleted post

 

[fhansen]

How can you separate the curse from the Law??
The curse is a result of breaking the law, so if the curse is abolished then there is no point for the law in condemning Sin.

The condemnation is removed because we can now finally overcome sin.

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous standard of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation, but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Rom 8:1-4, 12-13

 

[fhansen]

This is Augustinian doctrine, but the Orthodox follow the doctrine of St. John Cassian, as do I. The article I linked to above, Ancestral Sin vs. Original Sin, provides a much better analysis.

I believe the increase in popularity of St. Augustine in the West at the expense of St. John Cassian, another Latin saint, historically more important and considered as responsible as Augustine and Archbishop St. Celestine of Rome for the defeat of Pelagius.

Show me the link, please, and I'll read it. But I'd suggest the following for your consideration in any case. Sometimes the differences between east and west are not what some seem to wish them to be.
Original and Ancestral Sin: A Church Dividing Issue? – Journal

 

[fhansen]

Um, OK. Nothing you wrote disproves what I said.

Ok, so that's what it means to inherit the sin. We contract the state of being separated from our Creator, a separation which is not how things are "meant to be". This state is one of injustice, disorder, an anomaly in creation that nonetheless serves its purpose during man's journey away from-and back to-God, the very Source of man’s justice, righteousness.

 

[Fervent]

What was abolished was not the responsibility to follow God and live according to moral principles, but the covenant established at Sinai that was written on tablets of stone and guaranteed Israel the rights to God being their personal God. Sin existed before the law that Moses received, but the law of God is eternal because it is built on His character. Christ was the fulfillment of the promise, as King, and in the manner of rejection the dividing wall between national Israel and the nations was torn assunder allowing the Gentiles to enter the kingdom. Much of the confusion comes from treating the Bible as a personal document, when in fact severral of the books are actually national documents similar to the US constitution.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

To be under the law means that we’re obliged to fulfill it on our own. To be under grace means that we fulfill it by virtue of union with God, which is the only authentic way to do so. The obligation to be righteous does not go away with the New Covenant. So sin still earns us death but now we can finally overcome sin, by the Spirit, by grace, having been reconciled with God.

“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:13

The law is a curse because it can only condemn us, by showing that we’re unable to fulfill it. It convicts us of sin while not having the power to overcome sin in us.

“But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.”

“So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” Rom 7:6-7, 12

The problem was never with the Law but with us, due to our exile from our Creator. Christ opens the door so that we may now decide if we wish to continue on the path set by or our original parents, or to return to the God they rather easily and foolishly dismissed in Eden, having preferred themselves to God as it’s been taught.

To be "under the law" means if we break it we are under its penalty, its curse. If we sin, break the law, we are under its penalty, death. The curse was nailed to the cross. The law is now not just external but in our hearts as the Scripture says...

 

[Clare73]

That’s correct, and I used sloppy terminology when I said inherit original sin, since we do not inherit the guilt for any act of amartema which is to say a sin we are personally responsible for in a forensic sense.

Rather, we are born into the ancestral disease of hamartia, inherited from Adam,
which is missing the mark, a stain on the human condition that leads to death,

Correct. . .
we do not inherit guilt or sin for which we are not responsible (Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:4), rather we inherit Adam's (fallen) human nature.

1) And does not Romans 5:12-14 demonstrate that it was not a matter of fallen nature causing the death of all from Adam to Moses, but rather a matter of no covenantal law (Genesis 2:17; Mosaic law) carrying the death penalty actually being in force at the time, to sin against and cause their deaths. . .as there was in the Garden and under the Mosaic law, which caused their deaths at those times?

In Romans 5:12-14, it is not a matter of the "ancestral disease" of our inherited fallen nature which was the cause of death between Adam and Moses,
it is a matter of sin against law (of Genesis 2:17), and Adam's guilt thereof being imputed to us which was the cause of death between Adam and Moses.

2) Likewise, does not the NT present the First MAN as a pattern for the Second MAN (Romans 5:14) in the two Adam's (1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49), where the guilt of the first Adam is imputed to all those born of the first Adam, just as by faith the righteousness of the second Adam is imputed (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:20-24) to all those born of the second Adam (Romans 5:18-19)...
just as righteousness was imputed to Abraham by faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3)?

So, while it is correct that we do not inherit guilt of any act for which we are not responsible, God does, however, impute to us the guilt of the first Adam, for which we are not personally responsible,
just as he imputes to us the righteousness of the second Adam, for which we likewise are not personally responsible. . .in his patterning of the second Adam on the first Adam (Romans 5:14).

which is missing the mark, a stain on the human condition that leads to death, without salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who restored the human image, so through faith in him, we have the hope can repose heavenly awaiting Resurrection, and be judged worthy to enter into the life of the World to Come.

That attributes responsibility for our fallen condition to God,

Our fallen nature inherited from Adam and our guilt of Adam imputed to us by God are two different things, with different consequences.
We are born with both,
only one in itself (imputed guilt) condemns us
(our fallen nature does not condemn us, only the actual sin of that nature condemns us), and
only one is a matter of God's purpose in the two Adam's--his imputation of both their guilt and their righteousness.

They, therefore, being two different things, Romans 5:12-14 does not attribute our fallen condition (human nature) to God, it attributes it to Adam's sin.
What Romans 5:12-14 attributes to God is the imputed guilt of Adam, rather than our fallen condition.

which I came to conclude is an error of Reformed theology.

I suspect you may be delighted with the good news!

You don't have to maintain error in Reformed theology, for it is your understanding here that is short of the mark (no pun intended).
You can continue to say what the NT says, which is Reformed theology.

I would prefer to say that since we are created in the image of God, which is to say, we are each icons of God, that image was distorted by the actions of Adam, because God is infinitely loving, He restored that image by becoming incarnate, and through faith in our Lord and Savior, God the Son, the Logos, Jesus Christ, we are saved, and the process of salvation is one in which God restores us so that we once again depict Him in His heavenly and radiant glory.

I found a good article on Eastern Orthodox soteriology: Ancestral Versus Original Sin | St. Mary Orthodox Church of Central Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts