The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

[Hentenza]

Why?

What's the difference between reading a commentator and listening to a sermon?

Exactly.

I confess I also cringe when listening to sermons, I am a fan of the three minute homily.

Good for you.

 

[Clare73]

No, you're assuming that all revelation had to be recorded in written form.

No. . .but any "revelation" not in agreement with what is recorded in the written form is not from God, for God does not contradict himself.

So the written form becomes the measure of the non-written form.

Then we're faced with a situation here where the whole church, the early church, believed and practiced in a particular way, and then did so for the centuries following. Then a group comes along, some 1850 years after the fact, and says,, 'We got it right. The church had it wrong all this time, even though the group was nowhere near at the time that it all transpired. The church wears parts of revelation in its life, it's lived experience..

And what anything "wears in its life," as distinct from what is "written down," is subject to gradual modification into error when measured by what is "written down."
There is only one measure for all revelation; i.e., what is written down.
Anything else is just license to err.

 

[fhansen]

Your arrogance is showing and you had to take it there. Fine. That’s the BIG problem of equaling Holy Scriptures to the traditions of your church. And you know what Jesus said about “for the sake of your traditions” right? The group had to come along in the 16th century to protest your church’s doctrine errors and other problems. Most of the errors persist to this day.

Arrogance??!! It was the whole church, the one Arius questioned as you are now so that the doctrines on the nature of Christ and the Trinity might be hammered out by that same church in response to him. "Tradition" isn't always a bad word such as where it's used in 2 Thess 2:15 where the tradition originates with God. That group came up with their own traditions, of men, and did nothoing but muddy the waters and confuse the understanding of justification.

The problem arises when the historical understanding gets summarily tossed out. At least the controversy served to stir up another council, however, where the concerns and errors were addressed and corrected and the true understanding further clarifed.

 

[Hentenza]

Arrogance??!! It was the whole church, the one Arius questioned as you are now so that the doctrines on the nature of Christ and the Trinity might be hammered out by that same church in response to him. "Tradition" isn't always a bad word such as where it's used in 2 Thess 2:15 where the tradition originates with God. That group came up with their own traditions, of men, and did nothoing but muddy the waters and confuse the understanding of justification.

The problem arises when the historical understanding gets summarily tossed out. At least the controversy served to stir up another council, however, where the concerns and errors were addressed and corrected and the true understanding further clarifed.

I’m not going to argue about which traditions 2 Thess. 2:15 are talking about and whether the traditions in your church are the same as Paul is teaching. That's for another thread. Sufficient to say that we are not going to agree here.

 

[Clare73]

Arrogance??!! It was the whole church, the one Arius questioned as you are now so that the doctrines on the nature of Christ and the Trinity might be hammered out by that same church in response to him. "Tradition" isn't always a bad word such as where it's used in 2 Thess 2:15 where the tradition originates with God..

"Tradition" there refers to apostolic teaching, which is what we have in the Scriptures.

 

[fhansen]

Sufficient to say that we are not going to agree here.

I suppose not at this point. What concerned me years ago is what we see an example of right here on this thread: sincere people offering plausible arguments about the role of the law based on Scripture alone, directly contradicting the opinon of other Sola Scriptura adherents regarding the role of the law. IOW, both use the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura while disagreeing on its meaning as it relates to the Reformed doctrine of Sola Fide.

 

[fhansen]

"Tradition" there refers to apostolic teaching, which is what we have in the Scriptures.

"Tradtion" there refers to teachings which are not necessarily recorded in Scripture.

 

[Hentenza]

I suppose not at this point. What concerned me years ago is what we see an example of right here on this thread: sincere people offering plausible arguments about the role of the law based on Scripture alone, directly contradicting the opinon of other Sola Scriptura adherents regarding the role of the law. IOW, both use the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura while disagreeing on its meaning as it relates to the Reformed doctrine of Sola Fide.

Really? You are comparing the legalistic perspective to orthodox understanding? Sorry my friend but your church does not have the exclusivity on orthodox doctrine. I am equally concerned about your church reliance on extra biblical sources. Maybe a reason for the reformation.

 

[fhansen]

Really? You are comparing the legalistic perspective to orthodox understanding? Sorry my friend but your church does not have the exclusivity on orthodox doctrine. I am equally concerned about your church reliance on extra biblical sources. Maybe a reason for the reformation.

What orthodoxy? What legalistic perspective? You didn't really addreasss my post which simply stated what should be obvious-that those here on this thread going by Scripture alone are seriously disagreeing with each other on what constitues orthodoxy to begin with! Now, if we were going to talk about Eastern Orthodoxy, I'll pretty well agree with them on the doctrine of justification all day long, a doctrine which Luther correctly identifed as the crux of the Reformation. The real need for the Reformation was scandal, however, which was why it began. When the change was made to correcting basic doctrine the door opened for all kinds of error, error which continues to multiply and metamorphose to this day.

 

[Hentenza]

What orthodoxy? What legalistic perspective? You didn't really addreasss my post which simply stated what should be obvious-that those here on this thread going by Scripture alone are seriously disagreeing with each other on what constitues orthodoxy to begin with! Now, if we were going to talk about Eastern Orthodoxy, I'll pretty well agree with them on the doctrine of justification all day long, a doctrine which Luther correctly identifed as the crux of the Reformation. The real need for the Reformation was scandal, however, which was why it began. When the change was made to correcting basic doctrine the door opened for all kinds of error, error which continues to multiply and metamorphose to this day.

Let me remind you that your church has the dubious title of being the first denomination. There are differences in interpretation among the orthodox churches, and no, I’m not talking about the EO. All churches that accept the Nicene Creed are orthodox. There is no debate about that. Your opinion of what constitutes an Orthodox Church is of little value to me.

 

[Mercy Shown]

So Then, if your adopted religious philosophy you are promoting to me is correct, and God commanded men to kill animals for their sins in the very beginning. That would mean that the "LAW" Paul said was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham, wasn't the "Mosaic Law" that you teach to the world "cannot be divided/parsed". And it wasn't the LAW against murder, because Cain was punished for murder, and the Mosaic Law said, "Thou shall not kill", and it is your preaching that the "Mosaic Law cannot be divided/parsed". It wasn't the Law about adultery, because Abimelech was concerned about God being angry with him concerning adultery, and the Mosaic Law said, "though shall not commit adultery" and the Mosaic Law cannot be parsed/divided, according to the religious philosophy you are promoting. It wasn't the LAW about what is Food and what is not food according to God's Instruction on how to be Holy, because Noah lived under that "LAW" and you have said that the Mosaic Law cannot be parsed, if one part of it becomes obsolete, then the whole Law becomes obsolete. And clearly this LAW existed even before Abraham, and therefore cannot be part of the "LAW" that was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham.

So if it wasn't any of these "Mosaic Laws", your term not mine, that Paul is speaking about, because he said this Law the Pharisees were promoting to the Galatians was a Law "ADDED "because of transgressions", and was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham.

So even you are right, and Jeremiah was lying in Jer. 7:22-23, about God Commanding the fathers to kill animals for their sins, which the Bible clearly doesn't teach, before Mt. Sinai. Then Paul couldn't be talking about the "Mosaic Law", which you preach can not be "parsed", because the Law Paul is speaking to wasn't "ADDED" until 430 years after Abraham.

There’s no need to rely on complex religious philosophies — the Bible speaks plainly when read in context. The problem arises when we bring our own preconceived ideas to Scripture and then try to force the Bible to fit them, rather than letting Scripture interpret itself.


Paul did indeed say that the law was “added” 430 years later (Galatians 3:17,19). Let’s take that statement at face value.
To add something, it must already exist in some form — you can’t add what doesn’t exist. Paul didn’t say the law was created 430 years later; he said it was added. That means it was incorporated or expanded in a new way, not invented from nothing.


It’s called the Mosaic Law because it was revealed through Moses — but its moral foundation existed long before Sinai. God revealed His will and standards to mankind from the beginning. Cain was punished for murder, Noah distinguished between clean and unclean animals, and Abraham obeyed God’s “commandments, statutes, and laws” (Genesis 26:5). None of these lived under the Sinai covenant, yet all were accountable to divine law. That shows that God’s moral principles predate Moses.


Paul also said the law was added “because of transgressions” (Galatians 3:19). But the Bible defines sin as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). So if sin already existed before Sinai — and Scripture plainly shows it did — then the law must have existed in some form before it was written down. Otherwise, there could have been no sin, and thus no reason for judgment before Moses.


Therefore, the “adding of the law” refers not to the creation of a brand-new moral code, but to the formal giving and codifying of that law through Moses — transforming what was known and understood in principle into a written covenant for the nation of Israel.


In short, Paul’s words in Galatians don’t contradict the existence of God’s moral law before Sinai; they explain its codification and covenantal administration through Moses. There is a deeper theology behind this, but even on the surface, the plain reading of Scripture supports this interpretation.

Scriptural Support​

Paul’s own writings confirm this understanding. In Romans 5:13, he says, “Sin is not imputed when there is no law,” yet he immediately adds, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Death could only reign because sin was already present — and sin, by definition, is law-breaking (1 John 3:4). This proves that God’s moral law existed long before Moses.


Then, in Galatians 3:19, Paul explains that the law “was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made.” This addition points to the Sinai covenant, when God’s law — already in effect — was written down and bound to Israel as a national agreement.


Finally, Exodus 19–20 records the moment of that formal giving. The Ten Commandments, written by God’s own hand, expressed the same moral standards known since creation — now revealed as part of a covenantal structure with Israel.

Thus, the law “added” 430 years after Abraham was not the creation of morality, but the codification of divine law into a national covenant — a system of ordinances, sacrifices, and priestly mediation that pointed forward to Christ, the ultimate fulfillment of both law and promise.
The law wasn’t created at Sinai — it was added in written form to reveal sin and point us to Christ. God’s moral standards existed from the beginning, but at Sinai they were codified into a covenant that highlighted humanity’s need for grace. As Paul said, “The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24) — not so we would worship the law, but the God who fulfilled it in His Son.

 

[Clare73]

"Tradtion" there refers to teachings which are not necessarily recorded in Scripture.

Which would necessarily agree with what is recorded in Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

Let me remind you that your church has the dubious title of being the first denomination.

Ok, I'm not sure what's dubious about that, though.

There are differences in interpretation among the orthodox churches, and no, I’m not talking about the EO.

I brought up the EO to emphasize that, when it comes to the most basic understanding of the faith, that of justifcation, what it means to be right in the eyes of God and whether or not that status can be compromised, forfeited, lost and whether or not salvation is a journey, a process as much as it is an event, I've never heard anything from the east or any of those ancient churches that I could object to- I've always agreed.

All churches that accept the Nicene Creed are orthodox. There is no debate about that.

All churches that accept the Nicene Creed are certainly more orthodox than those that don't but they vary in how fully well they understand the faith. And, again, that's why we can have serious disagreements here on these forums.

Your opinion of what constitutes an Orthodox Church is of little value to me.

"Let me remind you" that you brought the concept of orthodoxy up here, and have debated others over what constitues orthodoxy, and the CC for its part accepts the Nicene Creed and was even part of its construction.

 

[fhansen]

Which would necessarily agree with what is recorded in Scripture.

Tradition would necessarily not disagree with Scripture. Whether or not they both share all that was revealed, at least materially, would be another question.

 

[Studyman]

There’s no need to rely on complex religious philosophies — the Bible speaks plainly when read in context. The problem arises when we bring our own preconceived ideas to Scripture and then try to force the Bible to fit them, rather than letting Scripture interpret itself.

This is true. There is nothing complex about the temporary Priesthood "works" "added" as a Mercy "because" of sin, and was to be in place until the True Priest should come.. God's Laws that define Good, Holy, Righteousness and Transgressions have always been separate from the Law that was "ADDED" because of transgressions (Sin).

As it is written, "To Obey is better than Sacrifice". I would ask you, "To obey what", but your religion it seems, doesn't allow you to answer questions.

"Many", who come in Christ's Name, have adopted and are now promoting a "preconceived idea" that there is no separating God's Law that defines sin, from God's Laws ADDED "because" of Sin. (Transgression)

The foundation of this teaching is founded on the preconceived idea that there is no difference between the two laws.

Since your religion will not allow you to discuss these scriptures, or answer any questions asked of you, in order to preserve, defend and promote these preconceived ideas, there is no renewed spirit of the mind. No growing in the knowledge of God. No correction or reproof.

Just self justification.

I have tried in great detail to show through Scriptures, that there is a separation/parsing by God's Word, between God's Laws that define Holiness, Righteousness, and Godliness, from God's LAW that was ADDED "BECAUSE" of transgression of God's Laws that define Holiness, Righteousness, and Godliness.

But the preconceived ideas of men are most precious to them, and they don't believe in God enough to trust His Word where they are concerned, because they might expose the preconceived ideas as from man and not God. Jesus speaks to this in John 3:20.

 

[Clare73]

Tradition would necessarily not disagree with Scripture. Whether or not they both share all that was revealed, at least materially, would be another question.

No problem if all is in agreement with Scritpure. . .seriousu problem of error if any is not in agreement with Scripture or is an addition to Scripture.

An addition to Scripture, not being written down, suffers from modification over time.

 

[Mercy Shown]

This is true. There is nothing complex about the temporary Priesthood "works" "added" as a Mercy "because" of sin, and was to be in place until the True Priest should come.. God's Laws that define Good, Holy, Righteousness and Transgressions have always been separate from the Law that was "ADDED" because of transgressions (Sin).

As it is written, "To Obey is better than Sacrifice". I would ask you, "To obey what", but your religion it seems, doesn't allow you to answer questions.

"Many", who come in Christ's Name, have adopted and are now promoting a "preconceived idea" that there is no separating God's Law that defines sin, from God's Laws ADDED "because" of Sin. (Transgression)

The foundation of this teaching is founded on the preconceived idea that there is no difference between the two laws.

Since your religion will not allow you to discuss these scriptures, or answer any questions asked of you, in order to preserve, defend and promote these preconceived ideas, there is no renewed spirit of the mind. No growing in the knowledge of God. No correction or reproof.

Just self justification.

I have tried in great detail to show through Scriptures, that there is a separation/parsing by God's Word, between God's Laws that define Holiness, Righteousness, and Godliness, from God's LAW that was ADDED "BECAUSE" of transgression of God's Laws that define Holiness, Righteousness, and Godliness.

But the preconceived ideas of men are most precious to them, and they don't believe in God enough to trust His Word where they are concerned, because they might expose the preconceived ideas as from man and not God. Jesus speaks to this in John 3:20.

Thank you for your response, but I notice several key points from my argument remain unaddressed:

1. Existence of law prior to Sinai: I explained that Paul said the law was added 430 years after Abraham. For something to be added, it must already exist. You did not address this logical point — the law didn’t begin at Sinai; it was codified there.
2. Sin existed before Moses: Sin is defined as transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). Romans 5:13–14 shows that death and sin reigned from Adam to Moses, proving that God’s moral law was already in effect. You did not engage this scripture or the fact that sin presupposes law.
3. Mosaic Law is codification, not invention: I emphasized that Moses did not invent the law — God revealed it through him. Your response ignores this point entirely.
4. Law as tutor pointing to Christ: Galatians 3:24 explains that the law was designed to lead people to Christ, showing that obedience alone was never the ultimate goal. You did not respond to this central theological point.
5. Scriptural evidence supporting my argument: My references to Galatians 3 and Romans 5 clearly show that God’s law existed before Sinai and that the “added” law was formalized through Moses. You did not address these passages.

In short, while you focus on separating moral law from the law “added because of sin,” you fail to respond to the core logical and scriptural points: the law existed before Sinai, sin existed before Sinai, Moses codified it rather than invented it, and the law’s ultimate purpose was to point to Christ. These points remain unchallenged.

Point	Status
“Added” law requires prior existence of law	Unaddressed
Sin existed before Mosaic Law; moral function already in effect	Unaddressed
Mosaic Law is codification, not invention	Unaddressed
Scriptural evidence from Romans 5 and Galatians 3 supporting pre-Sinai law	Unaddressed
Moses did not invent the law; God revealed it through him	Unaddressed
Law as tutor pointing to Christ	Unaddressed

 

[Hentenza]

Ok, I'm not sure what's dubious about that, though.

You don’t mind then that your church started the denomination groups and then was at fault for the creation of a lot more in the 16th century? Ok then.

I brought up the EO to emphasize that, when it comes to the most basic understanding of the faith, that of justifcation, what it means to be right in the eyes of God and whether or not that status can be compromised, forfeited, lost and whether or not salvation is a journey, a process as much as it is an event, I've never heard anything from the east or any of those ancient churches that I could object to- I've always agreed.

Ok but you know that I have issues with that teaching.

All churches that accept the Nicene Creed are certainly more orthodox than those that don't but they vary in how fully well they understand the faith. And, again, that's why we can have serious disagreements here on these forums.

More orthodox? How fully we understand the faith? lol The arrogance. We understand the fullness of the faith just fine. I don’t know if you understand this but all Christians are going to the same heaven, right? Or are you expecting that the adherents of your church are going to a different heaven or have any kind of advantage?

"Let me remind you" that you brought the concept of orthodoxy up here, and have debated others over what constitues orthodoxy, and the CC for its part accepts the Nicene Creed and was even part of its construction.

We can argue this in another thread. And BTW you started it in your post 297 by belittling other churches.

 

[Studyman]

Paul did indeed say that the law was “added” 430 years later (Galatians 3:17,19).

Yes, Paul is speaking about a "LAW" that the Pharisees were still promoting, that was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham.

Let’s take that statement at face value.
To add something, it must already exist in some form — you can’t add what doesn’t exist.

To believe this preconceived idea, I would have to believe that mortal humans existed before God "ADDED" them to planet earth. That "Whales existed, before God "ADDED" them to the earth. That is absurd.

There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible which would support such a philosophy. And yet, it is your belief. Isn't God the Creator? Or are you teaching that some other god creates stuff so my God can "ADD" them as He chooses?

Paul didn’t say the law was created 430 years later; he said it was added. That means it was incorporated or expanded in a new way, not invented from nothing.

That is your "preconceived idea". There is nothing in Scriptures that support this idea, unless a person takes a few verses, separates them from the rest of the Bible, inject their own ideas in the Scripture.

Jer. 7: 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 "But this thing commanded I them", saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

Why would the Spirit of Christ place these words in Jeremiah's mouth if they were not true? What were the people commanded to "OBEY"?

And there certainly was a "Commandment" of God" "concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices" for Sin. I posted them, but you don't want to examine and discuss them.

You tell me, "When was the "LAW" concerning sacrifices for Sin "ADDED" then"?

But the obvious answer to these questions, expose problems with the preconceived ideas you have adopted and are promoting. Don't you want further God's Truth, and not man-made "preconceived ideas"?

It’s called the Mosaic Law because it was revealed through Moses — but its moral foundation existed long before Sinai.

Yes, as it is written about Isaac;

Gen. 26: 4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

So it wasn't any of God's Laws, Commandments and Statutes Abraham was given, that was "ADDED" because of sins.

God revealed His will and standards to mankind from the beginning. Cain was punished for murder, Noah distinguished between clean and unclean animals, and Abraham obeyed God’s “commandments, statutes, and laws” (Genesis 26:5). None of these lived under the Sinai covenant, yet all were accountable to divine law. That shows that God’s moral principles predate Moses.

Yes, but Paul is talking about a LAW that was "ADDED", so yes, the LAW the Pharisees were promoting to the Galatians, was "ADDED" to God eternal Law defining Holiness, Clean, Righteousness that Abraham obeyed and taught to his children and household after him.

I agree.

Paul also said the law was added “because of transgressions” (Galatians 3:19). But the Bible defines sin as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). So if sin already existed before Sinai — and Scripture plainly shows it did — then the law must have existed in some form before it was written down.

Yes, this is the opposite of what you were preaching when this discussion started. You said the entire Law given by God to Moses, wasn't "ADDED" until Sinai. Of course God's Law existed, that is what the "LAW" Paul is speaking to was "ADDED" too? Another question I asked you, but you refused to answer.

Otherwise, there could have been no sin, and thus no reason for judgment before Moses.

And there was Judgment before Moses. Cain, the world in Noah's Time, Sodom and Gomorrah. But still, there was no "Command of God" concerning burnt offering and sacrifices for sin. At least no according to the Bible.

Therefore, the “adding of the law” refers not to the creation of a brand-new moral code,

That is true. God's Law is perfect and the very definition of "moral". What is Clean, what is Holy, what is Good, what is Righteous. These Laws of God were shown to Cain, the world of Noah's Time, Abraham and Sodom, etc.

What was "ADDED" was not God's instruction in righteousness. But a "LAW" that was "ADDED" because of "transgression" of
God's Righteousness.

but to the formal giving and codifying of that law through Moses — transforming what was known and understood in principle into a written covenant for the nation of Israel.

"There’s no need to rely on complex religious philosophies — the Bible speaks plainly when read in context".

The written covenant with Israel was posted for your review and discussion, and you refused to engage either one. And it is quite simple.

Here is the Covenant that was ratified in Blood.

Ex. 19: 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. 7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. 8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

Exactly as Jeremiah 7: 22,23 declared. But the People broke the Covenant, and Moses had to go back up to God the 2nd Time. This is when the "LAW" concerning sacrifices and offerings for sin was "ADDED".

In short, Paul’s words in Galatians don’t contradict the existence of God’s moral law before Sinai; they explain its codification and covenantal administration through Moses. There is a deeper theology behind this, but even on the surface, the plain reading of Scripture supports this interpretation.

This represents your own preconceived ideas, confirmed by your own statements, that God's Law "added" because of Sin, cannot be separated from God's Law defining Sin.

Scriptural Support​

Paul’s own writings confirm this understanding. In Romans 5:13, he says, “Sin is not imputed when there is no law,” yet he immediately adds, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Death could only reign because sin was already present — and sin, by definition, is law-breaking (1 John 3:4). This proves that God’s moral law existed long before Moses.

Which is my point from the very beginning. But the "LAW" requiring a man who sinned, to bring a goat to a Levite Priest and killing it, for remission of sins, didn't exist until after the Golden Calf. As the Spirit is Jeremiah tries to tell men but they won't abandon their preconceived ideas.

Then, in Galatians 3:19, Paul explains that the law “was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made.” This addition points to the Sinai covenant, when God’s law — already in effect — was written down and bound to Israel as a national agreement.

Your post is not making any sense. You claim a LAW defining sin already existed since Cain and Able, and I agree. But you say out of the other side of your mouth, that this LAW was "ADDED" on Mt. Sinai. Here is the Sinai Covenant, which is the same Covenant God made with Abraham. You can read it yourself from your own Bible in Gen. 17.

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, "then ye shall" be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Where is the "LAW" requiring a man who transgressed God's Voice, to bring a goat to the Levite Priest and kill it.

Finally, Exodus 19–20 records the moment of that formal giving. The Ten Commandments, written by God’s own hand, expressed the same moral standards known since creation — now revealed as part of a covenantal structure with Israel.

Exactly, the 10 Commandments wasn't "ADDED" because Israel sinned, just as the Law not to eat of a certain tree wasn't "ADDED" because Adam and Eve sinned. Just as the Law concerning murder was not "ADDED" because Cain sinned.

But the Law the Pharisees were still promoting for the remission of Sins, from the time Jesus cast them out of the Temple, to the time of Paul and their bewitching of the Galatians, wasn't "ADDED" until after the Golden Calf, the great transgression.

Thus, the law “added” 430 years after Abraham was not the creation of morality, but the codification of divine law into a national covenant — a system of ordinances, sacrifices, and priestly mediation that pointed forward to Christ, the ultimate fulfillment of both law and promise.

Again, because of your preconceived idea that God's Laws defining sin, cannot be separated from a Temporary Law ADDED "BECAUSE" of Sins, you promote this philosophy.

And you are free to do so, as this is the foundation of "Many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord, as Jesus also warns.

The law wasn’t created at Sinai —

The "LAW" that commanded a man that sinned, must take a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it for the remission of his sin, was most certainly "created by God" on Mt. Sinai, and "ADDED" to God's Law defining sin, righteousness, holiness, after Moses went up to God the 2nd time.

This popular religious philosophy that promotes the foolishness that God's Law about Loving Him and Loving others, and His definition of what these Laws mean, was only "ADDED" until Jesus came, is absurd. But the Law ADDED "because of sin", requiring a man to kill a goat, "until the Lamb of God should come", is confirmed all over the Scriptures.

it was added in written form to reveal sin and point us to Christ. God’s moral standards existed from the beginning, but at Sinai they were codified into a covenant that highlighted humanity’s need for grace. As Paul said, “The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24) — not so we would worship the law, but the God who fulfilled it in His Son.

I disagree with this Philosophy based on what is actually written in Scriptures. There was a temporary "LAW" ADDED "because of transgressions" that was to lead sinners to Christ for the remission of their Sins.

Zacharias was Led to this Christ and understood this before Jesus was even born.

 

[fhansen]

You don’t mind then that your church started the denomination groups and then was at fault for the creation of a lot more in the 16th century? Ok then.

I think Martin Luther and a few others did that. All churches have some moniker, the EO is one such name which also covers, among others, ancient churches with the names Church of Antioch, Church of Alexandria, Church of Jerusalem, etc. Simi;larly the Churtch of Rome became known as the Cathilc Church. The eruption of new denomiantions began occuring when they protested against and split from the CC.

Ok but you know that I have issues with that teaching.

Yes, of course.

More orthodox? How fully we understand the faith? lol The arrogance. We understand the fullness of the faith just fine.

Whoever "we" are. As I've mentioned the "we" that includes non-Catholics here who hold to Sola Scripura aren't agreeing on what the faith is on a very basic point!

We can argue this in another thread. And BTW you started it in your post 297 by belittling other churches.

I didn't bring up orthodoxy but at the same time I didn't need to because, of course, everyone here has been arguing about the orthodoxy, the truth, of one belief vs another pertaining to the law. As for belittling? I simply stated a truth, one that you should agree with and most likely applaud while I think less of it.