I myself am not under the law

Oldmantook said:

If I understand you correctly, you propose an either-or dilemma. I propose that it is both. An unsaved person upon becoming saved is made conscious of the fact that he is a sinner when he realizes he has fallen short of the law and is thus a sinner in need of forgiveness. I think we both agree on that point.
Not sure you agree on this point that upon regeneration, the newly saved person now has the Levitical law written upon his heart. Since the law is in his heart he is able to do God's will - as instructed by the law. The Law or Torah simply means "instruction." The law which was formerly written on tablets of stone are now written in the hearts of believers that they might follow it.

Click to expand...

Well I agree, the law written on stone(or nine as written) is now in the heart and mind of believers. However, no one who espouses the following of Torah seems able to accept basic bible facts: Through the law we become conscious of sin:rom3:20
If Torah is written in the mind and placed on the heart of believers you must(must) be conscious you sin by failing to observe it. And if Torah is written in the mind and heart and you have no consciousness of sin by failing to follow it, you could not be a Christian, for the law could not be in your heart and mind. But I guess, if the only thing that really matters is theological debate between Christians/those who have extensively read the bible, basic spiritual principals of truth can and must be ignored, or deflected from in order to continue such discussions. To my simple mind that is very sad

Oldmantook said:

How can you not be under the law when the law instructs us as to what constitutes as sin? How can you know that you are not lawless unless you are aware of the law? Lawless after all, means WITHOUT THE LAW thus you are lawless since you no longer consider yourself under the law of Moses. Do you still abide by the 10 commandments or do you no longer consider yourself under it?
Your answers are very problematic.

Click to expand...

You have passed through seminary? Not being under the law means not being under righteousness of obeying the law. That is not a licence to be lawless!!!
The new covenant sums it up perfectly:

This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.’
17 Then he adds:

‘Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.
Heb10:16&17

You cannot ignore the law and have a licence to be lawless if the law is in your heart and mind. But you can not be under law in respect of righteousness of obeying it for your sins and lawless deeds will be remembered no more. For you have a saviour from your sin/transgressions of the law. Therefore you are not under law in respect of not having righteousness of observing it, your righteousness is faith in Christ

not under law said:

You have passed through seminary? Not being under the law means not being under righteousness of obeying the law. That is not a licence to be lawless!!!
The new covenant sums it up perfectly:

This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.’
17 Then he adds:

‘Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.
Heb10:16&17

You cannot ignore the law and have a licence to be lawless if the law is in your heart and mind. But you can not be under law in respect of righteousness of obeying it for your sins and lawless deeds will be remembered no more. For you have a saviour from your sin/transgressions of the law. Therefore you are not under law in respect of not having righteousness of observing it, your righteousness is faith in Christ

Click to expand...

Unfortunately you make up your own definitions. Not a good habit. For your information the scriptural definition of lawless/lawlessness comes from the Greek word ἀνομία transliterated as anomia which from Strong's means:
458 anomía (from 1 /A "not" and 3551 /nómos, "law") – properly, without law;

lawlessness; the utter disregard for God's law (His written and living Word).

458 /anomía ("lawlessness") includes the end-impact of law breaking – i.e. its negative influence

I suggest you stick to the original language to define scriptural terms and inform yourself accordingly.

DamianWarS said:

I don't follow the sabbath according to the letter of the law. I doubt anyone here does too. The moment you flick a light switch on you violate the sabbath because people are working to give you that light and if you disagree perhaps you should read the 4th commandment again.

The law points to Christ, the sabbath points to Christ so I look to Christ not the law.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately still problematic for you. You neglect the former (letter of the law) in order to emphasize the latter (spirit of the law) which amounts to a logical fallacy known as an either-or dilemma. Christ is the fulfillment of the law but apparently you wish to do away with the law at the same time. Do you commit adultery with your eyes? Whether you do or not does not negate the fact that you should not engage in the act of physical adultery either. Thus we follow not only the spirit of the law but the letter of the law also.
I can't help it if others choose to violate the Sabbath and I don't think flicking on a light switch is much work at all. It takes more work to brush my teeth than turn on a light.

DamianWarS said:

Do you think Paul cares about what you do with your ox?

Click to expand...

Yes....

What I stated relevant to the op is true and correct, so when you're ready to participate in cogent discourse I am available. Until then rhetorical inquiries that do not communicate your meaning or intent will be ignored.

Adamina said:

Featured I myself am not under the law
Levitical Law of Moses....

As a US citizen I am under the laws of the US and State that I am a citizen of.
As a Christian, I am under the Law of Christ my Savior and Redeemer.

Click to expand...

It should be noted the two are not mutually exclusive conditions.

.

Adamina said:

Saul/Paul did not desire to be under the yoke of the Mosaic/Temple Law.

Click to expand...

That is true but that is not specifically what the 1 Cor. 9 text is about. The 1 Corinthians 9 passage begins in the previous chapter with the sentence, "Now concerning things sacrificed to idols...." That is what Paul is addressing. He segues in to the example the more knowledgeable should present to the less knowledgeable, "...take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak," and from there he segues into his liberty and merit as an apostle in these regards, "If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?"

This is NOT the same commentary about the law as a means of justification he speaks to in Romans 3-5 and Galatians 2-3, nor what James is saying in James 2. These three passages should not be conflated merely because the contain mentions of the Law. This isn't even the same subject Paul was discussing earilier in the 1 Corinthians epistle in chapter 6:11.


This 1 Cor. 9 passage is a particularly curious one because Paul states, "To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law... so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law," but Paul admonished Peter for similar conduct! and there he spoke of justification by the law.


So either Paul is talking about the Law from a differing perspective for a different purpose and outcome or he's a hypocrite.

Oldmantook said:

Unfortunately you make up your own definitions. Not a good habit. For your information the scriptural definition of lawless/lawlessness comes from the Greek word ἀνομία transliterated as anomia which from Strong's means:
458 anomía (from 1 /A "not" and 3551 /nómos, "law") – properly, without law;

lawlessness; the utter disregard for God's law (His written and living Word).

458 /anomía ("lawlessness") includes the end-impact of law breaking – i.e. its negative influence

I suggest you stick to the original language to define scriptural terms and inform yourself accordingly.

Click to expand...

I have only come across one person on the internet who quoted the greek and understood Paul's message. There is learning through an academic exercise, and learning through being enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not rely on you reading the Greek to enlighten you concerning the message.
Why you give me all those explanations of lawlessness I really do not know.
As for my own definitions:
Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for everyone who believeth. Rom10:4
Paul's view of not being under the law was the complete opposite of your view. I will stick with Paul:

For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace Rom6:14
Where is lawlessness in that?
Which shows that knowing the Greek does not help you understand such a spiritual message I am afraid.

DamianWarS said:

Paul applies a deeper meaning of the law not the letter; he shows us the law is greater than its surface meaning and implicitly tells us it's not the surface that matters. v9b says "Is it about oxen that God is concerned?" the question is the same rhetoric I gave you but you missed that part. He never answers it but the point is clear. God is not really that interested in your oxen (and neither is Paul). Just as he's not that interested in if you mixed your grains together, eat lobster, or cut your foreskin off. These have deeper meanings and they all point to something greater and it is the greater we should look to not the letter of the law.

Click to expand...

Yes, Paul does apply the principle of the law and not the letter, and he does that often throughout his letters. That does not mean he has no regard for oxen. That would be a false dichotomy. And now that the motive behind the earlier rhetoric has been disclosed it can be addressed: You didn't "give" me anything, I didn't "miss" anything, and it's rude and disrespectful to wrongly imagine negative things about people you've never met.


Had you more familiarity with my posts the scores of occasions when I I have noted Jesus' and the NT writers' use of the law in principle would be known.

I guess that was missed.

Shouldn't have been imagined otherwise.

DamianWarS said:

This is the question of the OP. When Paul uses law (at least here) does he mean Torah as in the first 5 books of the bible? Paul clearly states 2 things, he is not under law and is also not outside of the law of God (lit. not "unlawful" or "lawless" to God) and when he uses the latter he defines it through being under the law of Christ (lit. lawful to Christ).

If we are to take the entire missional strategy from v19-23 Paul mentions Jews, those under law, those not under law (lit. "unlawful" or "lawless"), and the weak. He repeats the same with each, in order to reach those identified groups he must become them so it becomes easily scalable. v21 can be applied to all that he is still lawful to Christ when with the Jews, when with those under the law, when with those outside of the law, when with the weak etc... He opens this whole strategy (v19) saying "I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible" and closes with a similar sentiment (v22) "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some" then finally (v23) "I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

So Paul is not under the law (as he explicitly states) but is lawful to Christ at the same time. There certainly may be points of overlap here but Paul seems to go out of his way with these terms and using the language of the NIV it would seem that "under law" is different than "under Christ’s law"

Click to expand...

I believe Paul was referring to the Law of Moses (the Old Law) and that he was not without Law because he was under the Law of Christ (the New Law, or New Covenant, i.e. New Testament Law).

Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed. John tells us that the Law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). Acts of the Apostles 3:23 says that if any man does not hear that prophet (JESUS), he will be destroyed. Romans 8:2 says that by keeping one kind of law (i.e. the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus), it makes us free from another law (i.e. the Law of Sin and Death, i.e. the Old Law or the 613 Laws of Moses as a whole or package deal or contract).

DamianWarS said:

I don't intent to be negative only direct, like you calling me rude is direct but may not be intended to disrespect. tone is not something that can be expressed in written words so if we are to be respectful each other let us assume the best tone possible.

Click to expand...

And now you're posting unnecessarily further afield of the op. Forget tone. I didn't call you rude. Go back and re-read post 111. This is now the second time observably personally false and derisive content has been posted. Words matter, especially in a text-based medium (where tone is something read into the posts) and what was actually posted was wrong and the appropriate response is not this irrelevant exposition I've just received.

DamianWarS said:

Paul applies a very unique principal out of the law...

Click to expand...

It's not a "unique" principle; it is a principle found throughout the law and the salient point is what I stated in my op-reply: Paul applies the Law.


Because Paul is referencing the OT Law of Moses citing it in letter but applying it in principle, we know which law this is. We observe he is doing so discussing the Jews who are under that law when he is not AND he is doing so in the context of his and others' example to them and those among them less learned about these matters. It has little to do with the Law as a means of justification and righteousness, and everything to do with the liberty he has in the different contexts mentioned.

DamianWarS said:

Law is being identified as the mission not the instrument.

Click to expand...

The law is the instrument the HolySpirit uses to bring a person under conviction of sin.

DamianWarS said:

It's not the thousands, it's Paul. He is missionally motivated (the thousands should be too but we don't know what they are thinking) and in Acts 21 "to a Jew he becomes a Jew..."

Click to expand...

In regards to Acts of the Apostles 21: I believe Paul made a mistake in going to Jerusalem. I believe this is why he went to prison when he did not have to be in prison. However, Paul was still determined to go because he loved His fellow Jews and wanted them to know the love of Jesus. The Spirit told the brethren that Paul will be imprisoned by his going to Jerusalem. The brethren warned Paul not to go. They were in tears and loved him and begged him not to go. But Paul did not listen. He would not hear them. He did not want to hear it. Fault of character. Hidden fault. Minor error of his character. It is not something that condemned him, but it led to his dropping the ball in going back to the Old Law. But Paul was not condemned for not listening to the warnings by the Holy Spirit in going to Jerusalem because he was going out of his love for his people (the Jews) in trying to see them saved (i.e. The Scriptures say, there is no law against love - Galatians 5:23). I believe Paul also wanted to be around his other fellow Messianic brethren, as well. But when he went, I believe Paul was being peer pressured by his Messianic brothers to go through with an OT ceremonial practice (to wrongfully go back to the Old Law again) that Paul was not supposed to partake of. The good news is that God stopped Paul in finishing the ritual which involved animal sacrifices. The animal sacrifices did not take place because it was interrupted (See: Acts of the Apostles 21:26-36).

Important Note:

Please check out this article here by Ray Stedman; However, there is even a more amazing write up than this one by Bible commentator James Boice here that explains Paul's mistake in regards to going back to the Old Law; Please keep in mind I do not share their views on Soteriology, though; I merely agree with their view on what happened with Paul in Acts of the Apostles 21; The commentary by James Boice is a paid commentary, but it is well worth the price for the Scriptural references he makes.).

DamianWarS said:

Paul applies a deeper meaning of the law not the letter; he shows us the law is greater than its surface meaning and implicitly tells us it's not the surface that matters. v9b says "Is it about oxen that God is concerned?" the question is the same rhetoric I gave you but you missed that part. He never answers it but the point is clear. God is not really that interested in your oxen (and neither is Paul). Just as he's not that interested in if you mixed your grains together, eat lobster, or cut your foreskin off. These have deeper meanings and they all point to something greater and it is the greater we should look to not the letter of the law.

When Paul uses the term "law" he seems to mean Torah but he does not mean the deeper meanings, just the surface meanings as is evident in our he handles the aforementioned verse about ox. So Paul is not under this law but he may become as one under the law for a missional focus. We are bound to the deeper meanings of the law which I see is where Paul addresses in v21 saying he is not unlawful to God but still lawful to Christ. This is consistent with how he both applies the law with the oxen in v9 as well as says he is not under the law in v20 or that he may become unlawful in v21.

Saying things like we are then free to murder, steal and sleep with our neighbours wife if we are not under the law is a straw man (and I'm not accusing you of saying this, but in general) yes the letter of the law says "though shall not murder" but the deeper meaning is what we should look to, the meanings under Christ such as that we should love our neighbour as ourselves.

Click to expand...

I believe the whole of the Old Law as a contract or package deal is no more. This does not mean certain laws (like the Moral Law: Do not kill, do not steal, do not covet, etc.) have not carried over or have been repeated within the commands or laws given to us in the New Covenant (i.e. New Testament). For example: If you desired to buy a house, they would make up a contract. If you did not like the contract, you could request that they make some changes to the contract. If they agreed to the changes that you requested, they would discard the old contract entirely, and they would then create an entirely new one. This does not mean that certain things remained the same from the old contract though.

I believe the Moral Law (like: Do not murder, do not steal, do not covet, etc.) came into existence after Adam and Eve received the knowledge of good and evil (i.e. the Moral Law). This Moral Law existed before the Law of Moses, and it was emphasized in the written Law, and it continues today. The ceremonial laws like the Sabbaths (including the weekly Saturday Sabbath), circumcision, animal sacrifices, and the dietary laws have ended when Christ died upon the cross. The temple veil was torn from top to bottom letting us know that the animal sacrifices and the priesthood had ended and Christ is now our sacrifice.

I believe "Sin and Still Be Saved Salvationists" (i.e. Those who think that Jesus paid for future sin, instead of us having to confess and forsake grievous sin - 1 John 1:9, 1 John 1:7, Proverbs 28:13, Luke 18:9-14, John 5:14, John 8:11) will never understand this topic correctly. I believe they are seeking to turn God's grace into some kind of safety net to sin (even though they say they hate sin and that they strive not to sin - which is not a real standard of living holy or upholding God's goodness or basic morality).

If one is not spiritually dead for abiding in unconfessed grievous sin (like hate, lying, lusting, coveting, etc.), then a person can abide in grievous sin all the time and be saved by having a belief alone on Jesus. But Titus 2:11-12 says God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world. Paul asks the question, "shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Paul answers that question with, "God forbid." (Romans 6:1-2). Paul says if you live after the flesh (sin), you will die (Romans 8:13). If a person has a mindset that no sin separates them from God, then there is no real need or motivation to put sin out of their life and they will seek to justify sin in some way. Hebrews 12:14 says that without holiness, no man shall see the Lord. The context of this verse is in reference to also following after peace with all men, too (Which is a righteous action on our part and not something that is a mere belief alone).

Paul clearly was referencing the Law of Moses when he spoke of the Law generically most of the time. That does not mean there is not exception to this when he speaks about those who are lawless (Without those who are not following the Laws of Christ under the New Covenant). Some of the laws within the Old Law have carried over into the New Covenant. So the lawless are without any kind of Law whatsoever as a part of their life. Unfortunately, I believe many twist Paul's words to extend to include the laws of Christ, too. Yet, Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:3-4 that if any man does not agree with the words of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine according to godliness, he is proud and he knows nothing.

DamianWarS said:

I like to use the example of school. During school I have certain things I must do in order to graduate, but after graduation I no longer have to continue those things (attend class, be tested, submit assignment, etc..) and it would be completely arbitrary if I did. So I am no longer under the law of school but now have a diploma that I don't throw out but instead hang proudly on my wall. If I were a Doctor I wouldn't be lawless after school such as operate on people using kitchen tongs or suction with a household vacuum. I still am bound by a law that is very much defined on what I learnt in school, but the laws of school and the laws of post-school are different.



I believe all laws regardless what you call them point to something greater. The first law uttered as an imperative by God on day one "let there be light" and in saying this light was shown to a dark formless void. That light is the salvation of God and it speaks the dark and formless voids we are trapped in before salvation. the law is still upon us and God still speak light into the lost.

This law Paul talks about with oxen to me is obscure unless it was explained. Normally I wouldn't pull out what Paul pulled out and would just read it but not know it's deeper meaning. But Pauls pulls the meaning out and reveals that it's actually not about oxen at all and I think this is true on some level with all the laws. "Let there be light" is actually not about light at all, it is about salvation. The sacrifice isn't about killing animals it is about Christ dying for our sins, the dietary laws isn't about what we should eat it's about a system of pouring out God's spirit, first to the Jews then to all peoples. The Sabbath is not about abstaining from work on one day of the week it is about the rest of God. These laws are built this way by design and they have an immediate focus and perhaps benefit as well but they don't stop there and by design have a deeper meaning that is far more important than the surface with a far greater benefit. to look to the surface of the law misses the point, it reveals the greater meaning and it is this meaning that we should search for.

Click to expand...

Bottom Line: It really comes down to which Covenant along with its respective laws are in effect today. Do you believe the Old Covenant is still in effect and you believe the 613 Laws of the Law of Moses is still in effect today? Are Christians obligated like the OT saint to sacrifice animals if there is a temple built? Yet, animal sacrifices are no longer acceptable to God (like they once were) because Jesus is our perfect sacrifice. The animal sacrifices in the OT pointed ahead to Jesus Christ. Are Christians obligated to be circumcised otherwise they are cut off from the covenant? In the Old Testament: If you did not keep the Sabbath, you could be stoned or killed. Is this the case today for Christians under the New Covenant? I don't believe so because Colossians 2:14-17 makes it clear that these ordinances were nailed to the cross, and that we are not let other men judge us by their saying that we must keep the Saturday Sabbath, or new moon festivals, or other OT holy days, etc.

Hebrews 7:12 says the priesthood has changed.
Hebrews 7:12 says the law has changed.
A change means something is different and the Old way is not exactly the same as it once was. Something different is not the same anymore.