IMO it's pretty simple. The moral law tells us what sin is, what is right to do and what is wrong to do in basic ways. So why wouldn't sin be lawlessness? The law is simply the rules God made for mankind. The fact that we don't necessarily read and heed those laws written on our hearts does not negate the fact that they're right. Man, by his conscience, simply knows already that certain acts are right while other are wrong and thelogians have identifIed that internal knowledge as the "natural law".Well, the word "lawlessness" is a bit of a biblical anomaly.
Not even found in the KJV, and appears three times in the NIV. Two of them in Second Thessalonians chapter two in reference to the antichrist, "the man of lawlessness", and "the secret power of lawlessness". (the spirit of antichrist - 1 John 4:3)
Therefore, this topic is attempting to build a case based on one odd verse.
And theologically seems to follow a Sabbatarian reverence to the law. Think SDA.
Yet Catholics, to my knowledge, do not observe the seventh day Sabbath as commanded. (Exodus 20:10-11)
And there's no reason to use that verse to build a case anyway. Sin is sin and the law simply identifes it as such which is why it can be said that man wasn't accountable for sin until the arrival of the law-because then he woud definitively know what sin was-no more excuses. And that's also why Rom 3, 4, and 7 can teach that the law reveals and convicts man of sin. I don't know why anyone would argue against that.
Last edited:
Upvote
0